ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CABINET OFFICE

The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

London-based Civil Servants

John Pugh: What plans he has to reduce the number of London-based civil servants; and if he will make a statement.

Francis Maude: As part of our long-term economic plan to save taxpayers money and to pay off the deficit, this Government have reduced the size of the civil service like for like by 21%—that is after adjusting for machinery of government changes. That has increased productivity and saved the taxpayers £2.4 billion last year alone compared with spending in 2009-10. The reduction includes a substantial cut in the number of London-based civil servants.

John Pugh: I thank the Minister for his positive answer. Given the pace and scale of devolution in the UK, is there not more scope for merging and moving London-based Departments?

Francis Maude: There is a lot of scope for us to get out of properties that we do not need and we have done that already. We have released a huge amount of property into the private sector where it can be used for the purpose of creating jobs, and there is more that we can and will do in that respect.

Tom Clarke: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that an outstanding example of civil service dispersal is the Department for International Development in East Kilbride. As long as Scotland remains in the UK, which I believe it will for a very long time, can such an example be emulated?

Francis Maude: I completely share the right hon. Gentleman’s hope about the United Kingdom, and wish to add my thanks and congratulations to the civil servants at DFID who do such a fantastic job in Scotland. There is scope for civil servants to work in many places other than central London and we will continue to pursue that.

Bernard Jenkin: Although transferring civil servants to other locations and downsizing are necessary, do they not make the whole business of managing the personnel in the civil service much more difficult? Will my right hon. Friend give full backing to the new chief executive of the civil service to strengthen the data held by the Cabinet Office on the skills and capabilities among civil servants so that we do not disrupt the training and career paths of the people on whom we depend?

Francis Maude: As my hon. Friend well knows, the quality of data in central Government that we inherited was not good. It is getting better, but there is much more that needs to be done. The new chief executive of the civil service, who has got off to a terrific start, has a lot of experience in the management of big, complex dispersed organisations from his business background and I am sure that he will want to discuss that further with my hon. Friend.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Minister not aware that there is a great deal of disillusionment in the civil service? Is it not our job in this House to support really good people with the highest level of skills coming into the civil service so that they are happy and motivated in their job? What will he do about morale in the civil service?

Francis Maude: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need to support the development and skills of civil servants and to provide them with rewarding jobs. Obviously, the purpose of the civil service is not to provide jobs but to serve the public. I am happy to tell him that morale in the civil service, as measured in the annual people survey, has held up very well—it has certainly not fallen since the last year that his Government were in office—despite the very considerable demands made on it and the downsizing to which I have referred.

Alan Beith: Jobs are lost from rural communities under the shared services project, as has happened at Alnwick. Can we have a more determined cross-Government effort to relocate out of London work, such as archives, that could be done in rural communities?

Francis Maude: The right hon. Gentleman and I have discussed that in the Chamber before, and I completely understand his concern, particularly about the shared service staff in Alnwick. The machinery is not always as simple as it might be, but there is more that we can and should do to ensure that jobs are located in places where they can be undertaken efficiently and effectively with good results for the taxpayer and the citizen.

Miners Dispute (Outstanding Documents)

Ian Lavery: What progress his Department has made on releasing outstanding documents relating to the miners dispute in 1984-85.

Francis Maude: The documents, other than sensitive or personal papers, were released in the usual way under the law that was passed by the previous Government.

Ian Lavery: What have this Government got to hide with regard to the miners strike, because only 30 out of 500 digitised documents relating to the strike were released last week? There was no mention of Orgreave, but there was an admission that the Government tapped National Union of Mineworkers members’ phones. When will the documents that have not been released be released, and will they be released unredacted?

Francis Maude: I really have nothing to add to what I have already said and what has been said on previous occasions. The same considerations were applied to these papers as apply to the release of Government papers generally, which means that those that are personal or sensitive are not released in the normal time scales. I know that there are very strong feelings about this. I was a Member of Parliament for a coal mining constituency during the mining strike, and the mining community was deeply divided during that period. I am well aware of the sensitivities of that period.

Jonathan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend note that the appetite for everything to be disclosed is shared by some Government Members, most particularly because I can recall the unlawful killing of the taxi driver David Wilkie and the recent revelations from the former right hon. Member for Pontypridd that following the event a number of papers at the NUM offices in south Wales were deliberately burnt and destroyed?

Francis Maude: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I am a strong supporter of transparency and am proud of what this Government have done to make us the most transparent Government in the world. There is a concern, and that was a very bitter period in our nation’s life, but the normal considerations about the protection of personal papers must be followed in this case as in others.

Dennis Skinner: Is not the whole subject of these papers embarrassing to the Government and to the Minister? At the beginning we argued that 75 pits were to be closed, and the Thatcher Government said at the time that there were only 20. They lied continually in the House of Commons, repeating that figure, and then the Cabinet papers revealed that it was 75 after all and that the miners had been right. He is embarrassed to reveal other papers simply because that Government decided to attack the NUM and Britain’s manufacturing base, and that has been carried on by the Tories ever since.

Francis Maude: I think that the hon. Gentleman’s case would be stronger if at that time he had made the case for the National Union of Mineworkers to have a proper ballot of all its members so that they could decide whether they wanted to be brought out on strike, rather than being bullied and intimidated into it.

Ann Clwyd: I was elected in the middle of the miners strike in 1984 and know exactly what happened: we were lied to by those in authority. They said that our pit, Tower colliery, was uneconomic. We kept it going because the miners put their own money into it for another 10 years. There are lots of things that have not yet been revealed publicly, and I think that it is high time the truth came out.

Francis Maude: As I say, the papers have been released, subject to the normal considerations about protecting sensitive and personal documents. Again, I do not recollect—the right hon. Lady and I were elected on the same day and were Back-Bench Members of Parliament during that period—hearing her voice being raised to support a proper ballot of mineworkers on whether they wanted to go on strike at all.

Jimmy Hood: Why have not all the papers and memos between the Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, and the chief constables and magistrates courts been published?

Francis Maude: I can only repeat what I have said already: the papers have been released, subject to the normal considerations about protecting sensitive and personal documents, with the same considerations that are applied to all Government papers.

Big Society Network/Society Network Foundation (NAO Report)

Paul Blomfield: What assessment he has made of the implications for his Department’s policies of the findings of the report from the National Audit Office entitled “Follow-up: grants to the Big Society Network and the Society Network Foundation”, HC 840.

Rob Wilson: I welcome the NAO report into the matter, which found that there were no issues with Cabinet Office processes and, as a result, did not make any recommendations. Therefore, I do not feel that there are any wider implications for the policies of my Department.

Paul Blomfield: The Minister clearly must have read a different version of the report. Voluntary sector organisations in my constituency tell me that they are struggling to maintain vital services for the most vulnerable as a result of this Government’s polices, yet the NAO report shows that millions of pounds of public money was wasted on failing projects as a direct result of prime ministerial interference and ministerial decisions taken despite
	“concerns raised about financial sustainability and weak performance”.
	Is not that truly shocking? When other charities are struggling to survive, how does the Minister justify it?

Rob Wilson: I simply disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I disagree that we should avoid funding new and innovative approaches, despite the risks that come with doing so. I note that according to the Charity Commission, the number of registered charities went up from 162,000 to 164,000 between 2010 and 2014, and the total income of all registered charities has grown from £54 billion to £64 billion in the same period.

Tony Baldry: One of the lessons for us all to learn is the transformative potential of social enterprises encouraged by the Treasury—social enterprises such as the Cinnamon Network which does
	everything from running food banks to helping people when they are released from prison. Social enterprises have the potential to make a real change in our society.

Rob Wilson: My right hon. Friend is exactly right. Supporting social enterprises has been a huge priority for this Government, which is why in the autumn statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer increased social investment tax relief, raising the cap to £5 million. We are the party of small business, but we are also the party of social enterprises.

Lisa Nandy: Will the Minister explain why his Department, which is supposed to be responsible for Government transparency, has refused to release any minutes or attendance lists of meetings between his advisers, the Big Society Network and the Society Network Foundation, and why over six months he has refused to answer 76 parliamentary questions on the subject? Some £3 million were wasted, there were two damning reports from the National Audit Office, thousands of charities are in crisis, and the only beneficiary from the big society has been a Tory donor’s bank account. Is it any wonder that the Minister does not want to answer questions about it?

Rob Wilson: As the hon. Lady knows, it has long been the convention in this and previous Administrations that the minutes of ministerial meetings are not routinely released, but all the information pertinent to this issue was shared with the NAO in the course of its investigations. As for the Tory party donors that she mentioned, it is not the case that any of the trustees gained financially from the Cabinet Office funding. The matter has been investigated by the Charities Commission and the NAO twice, which both found no evidence of what she suggests. Furthermore, the trustees of the charities have invested significant personal resources into them.

Trade Union Facility Time

Andrew Robathan: What assessment he has made of the use of trade union facility time by civil servants; and if he will make a statement.

Francis Maude: At the time of the last general election there was no proper monitoring of trade union facility time in government. We now have controls in place that have saved taxpayers £25 million in the last rolling year to date, and have reduced the number of taxpayer-funded full-time union officials in central Government from 200 in May 2010 to fewer than 10 now.

Andrew Robathan: I am sure everybody in the House believes that employees in whatever sector should be given both the right and the opportunity to be properly represented with their employers, be it by trades unions or others, but the majority of my constituents and, I suspect, the majority of people in this country would still be quite shocked and unhappy to discover that we are still funding public servants, who should be working for the public service, to support trade union activity which has nothing whatever to do with what they are
	paid for. Will my right hon. Friend bear down on the remaining members given facility time in the public service?

Francis Maude: As I say, the amount of facility time has been reduced significantly. There is a perfectly proper use of facility time for trade union duties in resolving grievances and dealing with disputes locally and effectively, and we support that, but there was also a huge amount of unmonitored and out-of-control, paid-for activity supporting trade unions, including in many cases paying for civil servants to attend seaside conferences of trade unions at the taxpayers’ expense, and that seemed to us to be wrong.

David Anderson: When he carried out an assessment, did the Minister consider speaking to Opposition Members who have experience of being employed under facility time arrangements, where we spent the vast majority of our time helping management to manage the service we were working in, particularly when management was faced with cuts, redundancies and redeployment forced on it by central Government?

Francis Maude: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the proper use of a trade union presence and the use of facility time on trade union duties, as defined by law, can be very beneficial, and we support it, but what was going on went way, way beyond that. It was completely out of control, and it was quite right that we should bear down on it by first monitoring it and then reducing it. We have now reduced the amount of money spent on it to less than 0.1% of the pay bill in the civil service, and that was quite right.

National Citizen Service (Colne Valley)

Jason McCartney: What future plans he has for the National Citizen Service in Colne Valley.

Rob Wilson: Next year will again see NCS programmes taking place in every local authority across England. I know that my hon. Friend has seen at first hand the transformative effect that the NCS has had on participants in and around Colne Valley, where about 500 young people took part in it last year. The NCS will continue to grow this year, and I urge all MPs to visit a programme near them.

Jason McCartney: As the Minister said, I saw at first hand the benefits of the NCS when last year I attended a tea party with Moor End academy students at Astley Grange nursing and care home that brought together many different generations and people from different ethnic backgrounds. Does he agree that the NCS has also been very effective in promoting community cohesion?

Rob Wilson: Yes. Independent evaluations of the NCS have shown that participants feel more positive about people from different backgrounds and have a greater sense of responsibility to their community. The last evaluation also demonstrated that parents believed their children had a better understanding of their local community after taking part.

Gregory Campbell: Will the Minister agree to hold discussions with relevant Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to see whether there would be an appetite for extending the National Citizen Service there?

Rob Wilson: Of course we would welcome discussions. This is a devolved matter and it will be for local devolved Assemblies to make a decision on it. We are already pursuing increased numbers in Wales and having discussions there, so further discussions with other countries, including Scotland, would be welcome.

Digitising Government Services

Stephen Metcalfe: What future plans he has to achieve efficiency and reform savings by digitising Government services.

Francis Maude: As part of our long-term economic plan, we are moving a first wave of 25 public services online. Our future plans are to secure further savings by digitising more public services and moving to a “Government as a platform” model, building common digital infrastructure for services that improves the user experience and saves money by building common services only once.

Stephen Metcalfe: How are the Government working with the private sector and voluntary sector in Thurrock and Basildon to ensure that my constituents have the relevant training to be able to access these services?

Francis Maude: Britain already has a high level of digital inclusion, and it is rising, but we are determined to go further and get more people online. We are working closely with almost 70 organisations from the private and voluntary sectors that are signed up to our digital inclusion charter. I have no details of exactly what is going on in my hon. Friend’s constituency, but I would happily share them with him.

Chi Onwurah: Digitising public services creates vast amounts of data that can be used further to improve services and accountability, transforming the relationship between citizens and Government—a subject dear to your heart, Mr Speaker. However, each Government Department has a different approach to handling data, and there is total chaos among officials and Ministers about what is allowed, with, consequently, deep distrust among the public. In government, we will instigate a review to set out a coherent and ethical approach to data sharing. Will the Minister join us in committing to the principle that people own their own data and it is for them to say what happens to it?

Francis Maude: I am happy to welcome the hon. Lady to the movement for open data. Under the coalition, the UK Government have become the world leader in open data. There is more that can be done with sharing data, but it is very sensitive and difficult. We are determined not to make the mistake that her party made in government when it had a train wreck in trying to move data sharing too fast. We have a lot of ongoing work on this, and I would be very happy to share the thinking with her.

Topical Questions

Douglas Carswell: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Francis Maude: My responsibilities are for efficiency and reform, civil service issues, public sector industrial relations strategy, Government transparency, civil contingencies, civil society and cyber-security.

Douglas Carswell: The Minister for the Cabinet Office stated in October 2010 that public bodies would be made more meaningfully accountable. Specifically what new mechanisms has he put in place to make public bodies more meaningfully accountable to this House and, indeed, to the public?

Francis Maude: Our concern with public body reform has always been to ensure that accountability was improved. A number of functions have been brought within Government to make them directly accountable to this House through Ministers. A number of other activities have been discontinued completely. The number of public bodies has been reduced by about a third. When we came into office, there were no data about the actual number of public bodies. In addition to increasing accountability, we have also saved the taxpayer very considerable amounts of money.

Julian Smith: Given the recent cyber-attacks on the United States, what strategies are the Department and the Government putting in place to protect Britain and Britain’s corporations from cyber-terrorism?

Francis Maude: This is a very real and live concern. Our cyber-security strategy—I reported to the House on its third year of operation in the last month of the year—has been backed with £860 million of new money. We take this very seriously, but much more will need to be done because the threats are moving on very quickly, as well as the need for the defences.

Lucy Powell: In February 2010, when he was shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Gentleman wrote to the Cabinet Secretary to complain that in asking Treasury officials to cost Conservative party policy, Labour had
	“compromised the impartiality of the Civil Service and used the taxpayer funded service for political attacks.”
	What discussions has he had with the Chancellor about special advisers using civil servants to propagate political smears and fiction this week, and has he redrafted his letter to the Cabinet Secretary?

Francis Maude: I am confident that the permanent secretary to the Treasury, who was the permanent secretary to the Treasury at that time, has followed exactly the same practice as he would have done then.

Tim Loughton: Does my hon. Friend agree with Lord Winston that Labour’s mansion tax would have a devastating impact on the ability of charities to raise money from legacy giving?

Rob Wilson: Yes, I do. This real concern is shared by many in the sector. Most notably, the Wellcome Trust has voiced fears of the impact it would have on legacy giving. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations reckons that 10,000 charities get legacies each year, to a value of about £2 billion. Lord Winston, who is a widely respected Labour peer, has been joined by Charles Clarke, the former Labour Home Secretary. As they have both added their voices, I hope that the shadow Chancellor will rethink this wrong-headed policy.

Kelvin Hopkins: Earlier in this Parliament, Ministers flirted with the possibility of a politicised senior civil service. That danger seems to have receded, but will the Minister now reaffirm a Government commitment to the historic principle of political impartiality in the civil service, specifically in matters relating to the European Union?

Francis Maude: I did not catch much of what the hon. Gentleman said, but I will happily look at the transcript and come back to him with a detailed reply.

Mr Speaker: That is a commentary on the amount of noise. Let us have a bit of order for Mr Adam Holloway.

Adam Holloway: Will the Minister update us on the timing of the publication of the Chilcot report?

Francis Maude: I cannot really add to what Sir John Chilcot has said. That independent inquiry is under the control of the inquiry members. I can say that we have responded to every request for extra resources; none has been turned down. I would just add that if the previous Government had launched the inquiry at the time it was requested, it could have been finished and could have reported long ago.

Kerry McCarthy: In the debate on food banks just before Christmas, the Minister for Civil Society kept saying that the reasons for food bank use were complex and overlapping. He would not go beyond that. Will he join me in condemning the Tory councillor who said that the only people who use food banks are those with drug, alcohol and mental health problems, and will he acknowledge that the top two reasons for food bank use are due to the failings of this Government’s welfare system?

Rob Wilson: I think the thing to say about food banks is that I and Government Members commend Britain’s very strong tradition of volunteering and community action, which sees people coming together to support those in need. Food banks are just one example that I come across on a daily basis.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Martin Horwood: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 January.

David Cameron: I am sure the whole House will want to join me in condemning the barbaric attack this morning on an office of a magazine in Paris, in which it is reported that 10 or more people may have been killed. While details are still unclear, I know that this House and this country stand united with the French people in our opposition to all forms of terrorism, and we stand squarely for free speech and democracy. These people will never be able to take us off those values.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.

Martin Horwood: I saw the problems at Gloucestershire hospitals last week at first hand after an elderly relative phoned 111 and we ended up waiting more than four hours for her to see a doctor in Cheltenham A and E. Then she was promptly discharged. The local trust seems to be blaming patients for making bad choices, but will the Prime Minister find out why so many 111 calls end in A and E, why trusts such as ours route so many unplanned admissions through A and E and why emergency doctors cannot be provided at night in Cheltenham, all of which seems calculated to make normal winter pressures worse?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In the last quarter, the NHS has faced some unprecedented challenges. There have been more than 5.5 million people going to accident and emergency units, which is an increase of a quarter of a million on the previous year. Gloucestershire has had £3.6 million of the £700 million of winter pressure money that we have produced, and it should use that money to make sure it provides the best possible service it can.
	On the NHS 111 service, it is important to see what is actually happening. The number of people using it has almost doubled over the last year. Of those who use it, 27% say that had it not been there, they would have gone to accident and emergency, but in the event of using 111 only 7% are going. So I think it is a good service, but I am sure it can be further improved.
	Recognising the pressure on the NHS, I am sure everyone in this House will want to say a thank you to our hard-working doctors and nurses and other hospital staff for all the work they do this winter.

Edward Miliband: I join the Prime Minister in expressing horror and outrage about the unfolding events in Paris. We stand in solidarity with the people of France against this evil terrorist attack by people intent on attacking our democratic way of life and freedom of speech. We are united in our determination to defeat them.
	Doctors, nurses and other NHS staff are doing a valiant job, but over 90,000 people in the last quarter waited on trolleys for more than four hours, at least 10 hospitals have declared major incident status in recent days, and one had to resort to Twitter to appeal for medical staff. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that our NHS is facing a crisis?

David Cameron: Our NHS is facing huge pressure this winter, particularly on its A and E units, but the point that it is important to make is this: the NHS is
	facing this winter with more doctors, more nurses and more money than it has ever had in its history. What is important is that we recognise the pressures that are there and put in place plans for the short term, the medium term and the long term, and that with the massive increase in the number of people going to A and E, any health system in the world would struggle to cope with some of this pressure.

Edward Miliband: In June 2011, this was the Prime Minister’s solemn promise:
	“I refuse to go back to the days when people had to wait for hours on end to be seen in A&E…So let me be absolutely clear: we won’t.”
	Will he now apologise to patients across the country for having broken that promise?

David Cameron: I deeply regret it when any patient does not get a good service, but let us be absolutely clear about the numbers of people accessing A and E. Today, compared with four years ago, over 2,500 more patients are seen within four years—within four hours compared with four years ago. That is what is happening. We knew there was pressure on our NHS, and that is why, over the last year, we have seen 1,800 more doctors in our hospitals, 4,700 more nurses in our hospitals and 2,500 more beds in our hospitals. There is more that we need to do, but let us recognise that the health service in every part of our United Kingdom faces these challenges. We must go on giving it the money, the resources and the people so that it goes on providing a great service.

Edward Miliband: As far as I can see, the Prime Minister is not apologising to patients; he is blaming the patients. The pressures on A and E are not just happening on his watch, but are a direct result of decisions he has taken. When he decided to close almost a quarter of walk-in centres, was it not blindingly obvious that if people could not go to a walk-in centre, it would have a big impact on A and E?

David Cameron: We have 1,000 more doctors in A and E, and we are spending £13 billion more on the NHS, when four years ago the shadow Health Secretary said that it would be irresponsible to spend more money. What is interesting is that here we are, question No. 3 on the NHS, and the Leader of the Opposition has no solutions to put forward. That only says to me that while the Government are interested in improving the NHS, he simply wants to use it as a political football.

Edward Miliband: This is about politics—it is the Prime Minister’s politics, and they have failed. No answer on walk-in centres, so let us try him on another decision he has made that has been a cause of the crisis. When he decided to reduce the availability of social care services, so that 300,000 fewer older people are getting the help they need, was it not blindingly obvious that if people could not get the care they needed at home, it would have a big impact on A and E?

David Cameron: Again, absolutely no solutions—presumably, if the right hon. Gentleman had any solutions, he would have implemented them in Wales. He raises the importance of social care, and I agree. That is why from 1 April we are putting £5 billion more into social
	care via the better care fund. Up until now, the Labour party has told us not to introduce the better care fund. I assume that it now supports that important investment.

Edward Miliband: There is one very simple solution: get rid of this useless Prime Minister. No answer on care for the elderly, so let us consider the next thing he did. When he decided to ignore the pleas of doctors, nurses and patients, and plough ahead with his damaging top-down reorganisation, was it not blindingly obvious that if £3 billion is diverted out of patient care, it will have a big impact on A and E?

David Cameron: Our changes have cut bureaucracy and saved £4.9 billion. That is why there are 9,000 more doctors, 3,000 more nurses, and 6 million more people getting in-patient appointments—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There is too much noise in the Chamber from both sides of the House. The Prime Minister’s answers must be heard.

David Cameron: You can see this as plain as you like: the Leader of the Opposition apparently said to the political editor of the BBC, “I want to weaponise the NHS.” That is what he said, and I think that is disgraceful. The NHS is not a weapon, it is a way we care for our families, it is a way we care for the elderly, it is a way we look after the frail. Perhaps when he gets to his feet he will deny that he said he wanted to “weaponise” the NHS—a disgusting thing to say.

Edward Miliband: I will tell the Prime Minister what is disgusting—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I said a moment ago that the Prime Minister’s answers must be heard. The Leader of the Opposition’s questions must be heard as well. It is very simple.

Edward Miliband: I will tell him what is disgusting—a Prime Minister who said that people could put their trust in him on the NHS. He has betrayed that trust. He is in denial about the crisis in the NHS. This is a crisis on his watch as a result of his decisions. That is why people know that if they want to get rid of the crisis in the NHS, they have to get rid of this Prime Minister.

David Cameron: If ever we wanted proof that they want to use this issue as a political football, we have just seen it. If Labour has an answer to the NHS, can it explain why it cut the budget in Wales by 8%? That is where Labour is in charge. All parts of the United Kingdom face a health challenge, but the real risk to the NHS is the risk of unfunded spending commitments bringing chaos to our economy, which would wreck our NHS. That is the risk and that is why the choice at the election will be to stick with the people with a long-term plan, not a Labour party that would wreck our economy and wreck our NHS.

Lee Scott: Does the Prime Minister agree with my constituent, who contacted me at the weekend asking to join us, who said that the only people fit to run our economy are the
	Prime Minister and the Chancellor? The surprise was that the gentleman was the ex-chairman of Ilford North Labour party.

David Cameron: I am sure that that is the first of 4 million conversations my hon. Friend will be having at the coming election. It sounds like this one is going quite well. There is an important point here: there is no strong NHS without a strong economy. With our economy, we can see the deficit cut in half, 1.75 million more people in work and the fastest growth of any major economy in the west. That is the record, and that is what will enable us to fund our NHS, to fund our schools and to provide the public services our country needs.

Jamie Reed: With patients being told to pretend that they are camping, the symbol of the Prime Minister’s NHS is of patients being treated in tents outside accident and emergency. When he promised a bare-knuckle fight against accident and emergency service closures, did he intend to mislead the electorate?

David Cameron: All our health services right across the United Kingdom face a challenge. Actually, the English NHS that I am responsible for is performing better than the Welsh NHS, the Scottish NHS and the NHS in Northern Ireland, but the facts are these: compared with four years ago there are 2,500 more people every day seeing a doctor or a nurse within four hours. Why is that happening? Because we put the money in; and when we put the money in, the shadow Health Secretary said it was irresponsible. Presumably that is why Labour cut the NHS in Wales.

Mr Speaker: I call Sir David Amess.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

David Amess: I thank the House for that reception, which more than compensates for my having been made neither a duke nor an earl.
	Later today, the second edition of the booklet, “The Party of Opportunity” will be launched. Does my right hon. Friend agree with what the former Conservative Prime Minister, Sir John Major, has written in the booklet, which is that national wealth eases poverty, pays for social care and creates jobs? That is exactly what this Conservative-led Government have been doing.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The first duty of a Government is to produce a stable, strong and growing economy that can fund the defence and the public services we need. On this side of the House, we understand that. On the Opposition Benches, they have learnt absolutely nothing in the past four years. They would borrow and spend and tax, and put us back exactly in the position of crisis and chaos in which we found the country in 2010.

John Robertson: The one thing that was clear about the referendum in Scotland was the amount of young people getting involved, not just in voting but getting out there campaigning and being part of it. Is it not time that we got the rest of the country on board and got votes for 16 and 17-year-olds?

David Cameron: The referendum campaign in Scotland did switch a whole lot of people on to politics and political issues, because the question being asked was so important. We have said that we should respect the views of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Parliament, and we will devolve powers on voting age. In this House, I am very happy for us to have a vote. Personally, I think the right age is 18, but I am very happy to listen to the debate, to listen to the arguments and to put them forward.

Michael Moore: For more than 50 years, thalidomiders have been campaigning for justice, particularly from the German manufacturers Grünenthal. Now that more than 150 MPs have signed an open letter to the German Chancellor, would the Prime Minister add this to his busy agenda today so that we might get a decent and fair settlement for all concerned?

David Cameron: I have raised this issue on behalf of a constituent, not only through the European Parliament but with the German authorities, and I shall certainly reflect on what the right hon. Gentleman says.

Anas Sarwar: The price of oil has now fallen to $50 a barrel. While this is good news for motorists, it is bad news for Scotland’s oil industry and thousands of workers. It comes just weeks after Nicola Sturgeon said we were on the verge of a second oil boom and after the independence White Paper said the price would be $113 a barrel. This is a serious issue—jobs depend on it—so will the Prime Minister agree to meet my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), a cross-party delegation, industry leaders and workers to see what support can be provided?

David Cameron: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on all three grounds. First, North sea oil is a vital industry for the UK and one of the biggest investors in our country, so we should do everything we can to help it. Secondly, and for that reason, we took steps in the autumn statement to improve the taxation regime for North sea oil. Thirdly, as we said during the referendum campaign, it makes the case that North sea oil is better off with the broad shoulders of the UK standing behind it, because we never know when the oil price is going to be more than $100 a barrel or, as it is today, around $50. It makes the case for the strength of the UK and the utterly misguided nature of the SNP, which thought it could base its entire budget on such a high oil price.

Henry Smith: The latest Office for National Statistics figures show that youth unemployment in Crawley is at its lowest level since records began, but of course we need to do a lot more. What further policies are the Government pursuing to ensure that businesses in Crawley and across the country generate even more employment as part of our long-term economic plan?

David Cameron: I am delighted to agree with my hon. Friend. The youth claimant count in Crawley has fallen by 42% in the last year alone, and the long-term youth claimant count—long-term young unemployed
	people—is down by 71%. He asks what more we can do. We are cutting the jobs tax on small businesses and charities by £2,000; we are abolishing national insurance contributions for those who employ under-21s; we are extending the doubling of small business rate relief; we have cut corporation tax, including for small firms; and start-up loans are being offered right around the country, including to those in Crawley, who are taking them up. This Government can claim to be the most friendly to start-ups, entrepreneurs and small businesses this country has ever seen.

Virendra Sharma: Throughout the Christmas period, NHS staff worked tirelessly to see as many patients as they could, but increased waiting times at GP surgeries have forced more and more people to use A and E. Why does the Prime Minister not accept that Labour’s plan to employ 8,000 additional GPs is desperately needed and would make a real difference to the lives of my constituents?

David Cameron: From what I have read over the past 24 hours, Labour’s plan is to tax people in London and spend all the money in Scotland. I look forward to hearing how he explains that to his constituents in Ealing. There is a serious point to the hon. Gentleman’s question. The health service has changed in Ealing: Hammersmith and Central Middlesex hospitals both have GP-led urgent care centres that are open 24 hours a day and are seeing more than 400 patients a day, 99% of whom are seen within four hours; and we also have the expansion of the A and E unit at Northwick Park hospital. We need to ensure that the 111 service is helping to spread the information so that people who need care know where they can best get it.

Martin Vickers: The Government have repeatedly highlighted the importance of northern Lincolnshire and the wider Humber area to the offshore renewables sector. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent announcement of the establishment of a national college for wind energy, a university technical college in Scunthorpe and further expansion of existing local training facilities cement the opportunities for local people to benefit from the industry, boost the local economy and highlight the importance of northern Lincolnshire to the northern powerhouse?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is a real champion for north Lincolnshire and for Humberside in general. We are determined that this recovery is going to be different from previous recoveries and that we are going to see growth in jobs and investment right across our country. That is why he and others with me have been working hard to bring investment to the Humber, including of course the vital Siemens plant, and why we have seen employment go up and unemployment come down. Because of the local growth deals agreed in July, the Humber local enterprise partnership has over £100 million for local projects, which should create up to 9,000 jobs and allow more than 5,000 homes to be built, so we are determined to see recovery embedded right across the country.

Chi Onwurah: I am proud of the NHS in the north-east, but not one hospital trust is meeting the Government’s own
	scaled back targets for treatment in A and E—not one—yet the Prime Minister prefers to focus on a top-down reorganisation of the NHS, breaking it up for the benefit of his buddies and putting competition before care and profit before people. Does he really imagine we will trust him with our NHS?

David Cameron: Let me tell the hon. Lady what is actually happening in the NHS in Newcastle. Since 2010, there are 191 more doctors and 698 more nurses. Last week over 3,000 patients went to A and E, and all but 190 were seen within four hours. If getting rid of the bureaucracy in the NHS, which we did in England, was such a bad idea, why is the NHS in England performing better than other parts of the country that did not take those steps?

David Rutley: The recent final report of the Alderley Park taskforce highlights how around 300 jobs have been brought to the site in the last 18 months, with a healthy pipeline of new businesses looking to locate there. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this helps to highlight why the Government are right to put in extra growth deal funding to help further strengthen the life sciences sector in the north-west, which is vital?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend has been a real champion for life sciences in general and for life sciences investment in the north-west of England, which is an absolutely crucial part of the improvement and expansion of that part of our country’s economy, and that obviously includes Alderley Park. The local growth deal announced last July is going to establish a £40 million joint life sciences fund across Greater Manchester, Cheshire and Warrington, which will support the sector right across the north-west. That will include Alderley Park. This is the first Government to have a proper life sciences strategy, because this is a vital industry for our country’s future.

Elfyn Llwyd: Those of us who opposed the Iraq war, for very good reason, and many, many other people outside this place are very concerned about the inordinate delay in publishing the findings of the Chilcot report. May I please ask the Prime Minister: where did this bizarre notion that if it is not published before the end of February, we cannot see it until after the election come from? What about the month of March?

David Cameron: In many ways I share the right hon. Gentleman’s frustration: I would love the report to have come out already. Indeed, he and I voted together against the last Labour Government over and over again, saying, “Please can you get on and set up the independent inquiry that’s needed?” If they had got on and set up the independent inquiry, it would have been published, debated and dealt with by now, so I find it immensely frustrating, but it is not a matter for me. I am not able to order the publication of the report. It is independent: it is up to Sir John Chilcot when he publishes his report. He will make the decision, not me.

Julian Smith: Youth unemployment in Skipton is down by over 70% since 2010. City growth deal funding for the Skipton
	flood alleviation scheme will unlock a further 500 jobs. Is there anything the Prime Minister can do to make that happen?

David Cameron: I will look very carefully at this, because, as my hon. Friend says, not only the claimant count but the long-term youth claimant count has fallen—it has fallen by 50% in his constituency in the last year alone. I know how much his constituents want to see work on the Skipton flood defence project, which is a very high priority for York, North Yorkshire and the East Riding local enterprise proposal. We will make an announcement about this in the coming weeks.

Lisa Nandy: In Wigan recently, my local nurses granted a dying grandma’s fairly remarkable last wish when they wheeled her hospital bed into the car park so she could be reunited for one last time with her much loved horse, just hours before she died from cancer. Those brilliant nurses sum up everything that is great about our national health service, but in a recent poll only 4% of them said they thought the Prime Minister was doing a good job. Can he tell us why?

David Cameron: I am full of praise for nurses in Wigan. I think they work extremely hard to provide a good service. I particularly applaud the nurse in Wigan who chased the Health Secretary down the corridor and told him a thing or two about how to run the health service. If we are judged on our record, however, there are 9,000 more doctors and 3,300 more nurses in our NHS because we made the decision to protect the funding of the NHS, which Labour told us was irresponsible.

Andrew Turner: Will my right hon. Friend join me in supporting the Perpetuus tidal energy centre, a public-private partnership that will, from the Isle of Wight, give the world its first grid-connected tidal array test facility? This will put the UK at the forefront of tidal energy technology, protect existing jobs and create several hundred new ones.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, because the UK is now the most attractive market in the world for investment in offshore wind and marine renewables. We want to maintain that world-leading position, harness the economic and environmental benefits it brings and see local centres of expertise. From what I can see, the Perpetuus tidal energy centre sounds exactly the sort of exciting initiative we should support.

Heidi Alexander: Nearly half of all London ambulances called out to critical cases do not arrive within their target eight-minute response time. Is that what the Prime Minister had in mind when he told us that the NHS would be “safe in his hands”?

David Cameron: The NHS would not have been safe if we had followed Labour’s proposal to cut the NHS. We rejected that advice and put more money into it. The London ambulance service has launched a national and international recruitment campaign and has already hired 400 new members of staff. We are providing
	£15 million of extra money for the NHS ambulance service in London. That is why it met its target in 2013-14, attending over 460,000 patients with life-threatening illnesses. That is what is happening in our NHS because we made the decisions to reform the NHS, cut its bureaucracy and put the money in—decisions opposed by the Labour party.

Peter Tapsell: Reverting to the subject of the Chilcot report, about which I have questioned the Prime Minister in the past, did my right hon. Friend note that our distinguished colleague Lord Hurd said in the House of Lords yesterday said that it was an absolute disgrace that it had not been published—a view that I certainly hold? Since it is absolutely well known by the cognoscenti that the report was completed many months ago, who—if the Prime Minister is helpless on this subject—is blocking it? Is it the Cabinet Secretary or Sir John Chilcot, or is it the White House?

David Cameron: I say to the Father of the House that I understand that the report is largely finished, but with every report such as this there is a process: we have to write to the people who are criticised and give them an opportunity to respond. This is now the process for all these reports, irrespective of which Government they are launched under. It is known as the Salmondisation process—although I am not quite sure why, as I do not think it has anything to do with the former First Minister of Scotland. It is not within my power to grant the publication of this report. It is independent and under Sir John Chilcot, and the process has to be finished—then the report will be published.

Khalid Mahmood: I ask the Prime Minister once again: will he apologise to all those who have suffered and continue to suffer in A and E departments across the country, due to his mismanagement of the national health service?

David Cameron: I could not have been clearer. I regret it when every single person who goes to hospital does not get the treatment they deserve, but our responsibility is to put in the money, which we are doing; to provide the extra staff, which is happening; to have a proper plan for joining up health and social care, which we are doing; and then to fund the Simon Stevens plan, which is the right long-term answer for our health service. People around the country will have been able to see that there is one part of this House of Commons working to improve our NHS for all its users, but that another part wants to “weaponise” the NHS—the most disgusting phrase I think I have heard in politics—and treat it like a political football. I know that they will reach the right conclusion.

Paul Burstow: Home care workers do a fantastic job in caring for some of the most frail people in our society, yet more than 200,000 of them are not even paid the national minimum wage. Will the Prime Minister talk to the Chancellor about ensuring that HMRC properly pursues and prosecutes the cowboy care agencies that are exploiting those people?

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is far more that we can do to prosecute and chase down organisations that do not pay their staff
	properly. That is why we are bringing into the Home Office organisations that can help to make that happen. Whether the organisation concerned is the Gangmasters Licensing Authority or, indeed, the National Crime Agency, all the powers are there to enable us to go after those who do not pay the minimum wage when they should.

Alison McGovern: On Monday I listened to residents of Mendell Court, an extra care facility in Bromborough in my constituency, as they told me of their serious worries about social care. For the good of all who need care and all NHS patients, will the Prime Minister go further to integrate health and social care?

David Cameron: Through the better care fund we are producing £5 billion, which is money that health authorities and local authorities can spend together. Up to now, the Labour party has opposed that fund and said that it should not be established; but I am afraid it is worse than that. The shadow Secretary of State for Health has been wandering around the television studios today, telling anyone who is prepared to listen that he would increase funding for social care. There is only one slight problem with that. The shadow Chancellor said on the news as recently as 5 January that
	“there will be no additional funding for local government unless we can find money from somewhere else”—[Interruption.]
	Ah—we are! If Labour Members had waited until the end of the quotation, they would have heard this:
	“but we have not been able to do that in the case of local government.”
	So there we are: total and utter chaos. One of them is going around saying that there will be extra money, another is saying that there will not be any extra money,
	and there are £20 billion of unfunded commitments that would lead to total chaos in our economy and a total breakdown in our health service.

Bob Neill: Will the Prime Minister update the House on the future arrangements for the upkeep of the Royal Air Force memorial chapel at Biggin Hill, the iconic former Battle of Britain airfield?

David Cameron: I can absolutely confirm to the House that that chapel will be preserved for future generations, as we have always recognised its importance and its rich heritage. I think it possible that of all the great moments in British history, the Battle of Britain 1940 stands out as one of the most important times that there have been. So we will protect the chapel, and will do all that we can to protect it for future generations.

Gerald Kaufman: Will the Prime Minister take action immediately to clear up the shambles at the Home Office? A constituent of mine who applied for a fast-track passport before Christmas was promised that it would be delivered to him by courier on new year’s eve, but has still not received it. As a result, he has had to cancel a trip that he was due to make yesterday, at great personal cost and great damage to his personal life. Will the Prime Minister ensure that that man is able to travel this week, and will he clear up this mess?

David Cameron: I shall be happy to look at the individual case that the right hon. Gentleman raises. However, I think that we have made huge strides in dealing with potential passport backlogs, and I think that the Home Secretary is doing a fantastic job.

A and E (Major Incidents)

Andy Burnham: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the major incidents that have been declared at a number of hospitals and on A and E performance in England.

Jeremy Hunt: Mr Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to come to the House and make a statement on accident and emergency services.
	First, we must recognise the context. The NHS always faces significant pressures during the winter months, but, with an ageing population, we now have 350,000 more over-75s than just four years ago. As a result, we are seeing more people turning up at our A and Es, with 279,000 more attendances in quarter three of this year as compared with last, and a greater level of sickness among those who do arrive, leading to an increase in emergency admissions of nearly 6% on last year. This picture is reflected across the home nations, with A and Es in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all missing key performance standards as a result.
	A number of hospitals have declared major incidents over the past few days, in what is traditionally a particularly busy time in A and E. A major incident is part of the established escalation process for the NHS, and has been since 2005. This enables trusts to deal with significant demands, putting in place a command and control structure to allow them to bring in additional staff and increase capacity. It is a temporary measure taken to ensure that the most urgent and serious cases get the safe, high-quality care they need.
	The decision to declare a major incident is taken locally—there is no national definition—and we must trust the managers and clinicians in our local NHS to make these decisions, and support them in doing so by making sure there is sufficient financial support available to help deal with additional pressures.
	I chaired my first meeting to discuss that support on 17 March last year. On 13 June, we gave the NHS an additional £400 million for winter pressures, topped up in the autumn by £300 million to a record total of £700 million, ensuring local services had the certainty of additional money and time to plan how best to use it.
	The NHS started this winter with 1,900 more doctors and 4,800 more hospital nurses than a year ago. This planning and funding has been widely welcomed by experts in the system, including NHS England, NHS Providers, the College of Emergency Medicine and the NHS Confederation. The funding the Government have put in, which is on top of the year-on-year real-terms increases in funding, is made possible by a strong economy, and will pay for the equivalent of 1,000 more doctors, 2,000 more nurses and 2,000 other NHS and care staff including physiotherapists and social workers. It will fund up to 2,500 additional beds, both in the acute and community sectors, and also provide £50 million to support ambulance services.
	But the NHS also needs longer-term solutions to these pressures. We are providing £150 million through the Prime Minister’s challenge fund to make evening and weekend GP appointments available for 10 million
	people, with over 4 million already benefiting. Our better care programme integrates, for the first time ever, health and social care services in 151 local authority areas, with plans starting in April to reduce, on average, emergency admissions to hospitals by 3%. And we have funded the NHS’s own plan to deal with these pressures, the five-year forward view, with an additional £1.7 billion for the NHS in 2015-16 and £1 billion of capital over the next four years to improve primary care facilities.
	Mr Speaker, let me finish by thanking hard-working NHS staff across the country for the outstanding care they continue to deliver under a great deal of operational pressure.

Andy Burnham: All over England, the NHS is stretched to the limit—and in places is at breaking point. Staff are working flat-out and we thank each and every one of them for all they are doing, but the situation is now serious and getting worse. Right now, too many vulnerable people are exposed to too much risk, waiting hours for ambulances to arrive, and held in the back of them outside A and E or on trolleys in corridors. This cannot be allowed to carry on. Patients and staff deserve better answers than they have had to date about what is being done to address this issue, and that is why, faced with this complacency, we have again had to force the Secretary of State to come here today.
	Fourteen hospitals have declared major incidents. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain clearly what this means for services in those areas? What is the official advice to people living in those areas? Is he providing any central support and advice to those hospitals? If a number of major incidents are declared in the same area at the same time, what contingency plans will be put into place to protect the public? More broadly, what new measures does he have under active consideration to ease pressure at all hospitals?
	The Secretary of State mentioned resources. When he allocated additional resources for winter pressure, what assessment was used to determine how much was needed? Clearly, it is not working. Does he now plan to reassess the situation and perhaps allocate more? Ministers keep blaming unprecedented demand, but the question is this: why is there such unprecedented demand? Could it have anything to do with the difficulty in getting a GP appointment, the closure of walk-in centres or the cuts to social care?
	Let me turn to ambulance services. There are alarming reports of people waiting hours for ambulances to arrive. This is because ambulances are trapped in queues outside A and E departments. We are hearing that at least one service has implemented a policy of leaving patients at the door of A and E without handing them over to A and E staff. Is the Secretary of State aware of this practice, and is he satisfied that it is not putting patient safety and care at risk?
	The last time we had to drag the Secretary of State here, he failed to inform the House that he had approved a proposal to relax 999 response times. So will he today tell the House what the current status of those plans is and whether they are still going ahead this winter? I have real concerns, which I have relayed to ambulance leaders, about making any such change without proper consultation and evidence. There are also reports of police and fire vehicles being used to carry people to A and E. What discussions has he had with police and
	fire service leaders about this practice? What training or advice have been given to front-line police and fire staff? Is he fully satisfied that patient safety is not being compromised?
	Finally, cuts to social care are a root cause of the pressure on hospitals. A record number of elderly people are trapped in hospital beds, and any solution to this crisis must involve councils and a solution for social care. So will the Secretary of State now act on our constructive proposal to hold an urgent summit of all the public services affected—councils, police and fire services—and to develop a co-ordinated plan to ease this crisis? NHS staff deserve it. Safe patient care demands it. When will he deliver it?

Jeremy Hunt: First, let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for this opportunity once again to go through the plans that we have in place to support the NHS and to reiterate the gratitude of the whole House to NHS staff for what they are doing under huge pressure at the moment. Let me start by telling him where I agree with him. I agree that what happens in the social care system is closely linked to what happens in the NHS. That is why, from June last year, meetings have been happening in 140 local authority areas between the local NHS and local authorities to work out how best to plan for winter. The result of that planning process, which is funded by £700 million of Government support, is extra doctors, extra nurses, extra beds and new plans in every area. I am absolutely satisfied that that money is making a difference. Every day in our A and E departments, 2,500 more people are being seen within four hours than was the case four years ago when the right hon. Gentleman was Health Secretary. The local structures worked last year, and they are working now. Now is the time to get behind them and to support the local NHS.
	In a letter that the right hon. Gentleman wrote to me yesterday, he talked about Government failure. This is not the time to play politics—[Interruption.] Perhaps Opposition Members will listen to this. This is what the head of NHS England, Simon Stevens, a former Labour special adviser, said yesterday:
	“the NHS, the Department of Health and local clinicians have done everything that could reasonably be expected”
	to put in place plans over the last weeks. If the right hon. Gentleman will not listen to that, perhaps he will listen to Rob Webster, who runs the NHS Confederation, a representative body of all NHS organisations. He says that we should be grateful for the huge effort NHS staff have put in over the past few weeks and that it is not the time to play political football.
	The right hon. Gentleman talked about ambulances, where we are putting in £50 million of support this winter, and some changes proposed by the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives, which he was informed about three months earlier than they came to public light. This is what the AACE said:
	“We have been surprised by some of the reaction today given that over the last three months the principles of what we are proposing…have been shared with Labour…and we have received no negative feedback”.
	What did the right hon. Gentleman say? He said it was a panic decision to relax 999 standards. There was no
	panic, no decision, no relaxation of 999 standards; I did what any Health Secretary should do: I simply asked for clinical advice on what would be best for patients. He chose to frighten the public, to scaremonger for party political purpose. Is it not time the Labour party, for once, thought about the impact on patients of the kind of things it is saying in the press?
	The right hon. Gentleman then talked, and the Leader of the Opposition has talked, about the causes of these challenges being the reforms this Government introduced in this Parliament. Let me say to him that the one part of the UK that introduced these reforms, England, happens to have the best A and E performance and the one part of the UK that has most set its face against these forms, Labour-run Wales, has one of the worst performances. If he wants to do something about A and E pressures, instead of trying to make political capital in England, he should be getting Labour to turn things round in the one place it does run the health service—Wales. He should be backing this Government’s support for the NHS in a difficult period that has meant more doctors, more nurses, more people being seen quickly, more operations, long-term support and a plan for our NHS; it should not be politics and scaremongering ahead of an election.

Sarah Wollaston: May I join the Secretary of State in warmly thanking NHS staff, who are stepping up to meet the extraordinary increase in demand for their care and expertise? Will he reassure the House that in meeting this extraordinary, complex challenge, they will not be made to chase targets, as we know that that was distorting clinical priorities in Mid Staffs, and that clinical staff should always feel absolutely confident that they have his support to place clinical priorities first and foremost?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that, and it is very important. Targets matter, but not targets at any cost. It is worth remembering that, over the four years we were seeing the tragedy unfold in Mid Staffs, it was meeting its A and E target the majority of the time. So it is very important that patient safety is the priority. That is why we have to support NHS trusts when they have major incidents and why we have to make it clear that, although targets matter, trusts need to be sensible and proportionate in their efforts to meet those standards.

Frank Dobson: Does the Secretary of State accept the truth of the assertions by A and E doctors and nurses that the call handlers working for the 111 service are referring far more patients to A and E than happened when NHS Direct was staffed by nurses, who exercised professional discretion?

Jeremy Hunt: It is always important to keep the algorithms used by call handlers—111—under review. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that 111 is part of the way we have been able to relieve pressure on A and E departments. Calls to 111 doubled this Christmas, and 27% of the people who called it said that they had been planning to go to an A and E department but did not do so following the call. That is a very important way of relieving pressure on our A and E departments.

Kenneth Clarke: Does the Secretary of State share my recollection that five years ago no political pundit of any kind predicted that the welcome ageing of the population and the ending of the 24 hours a day, seven days a week commitment of general practice would produce the quite extraordinary surge in demand that we now have to cope with? Does he therefore agree that instead of wild criticisms of local crises he needs to persist in the short term by providing resources and improving co-operation between social services and health care, and in the long term by implementing the changes necessary in response to demand, as set out by Simon Stevens in his report, which our reforms have enabled NHS England to produce?

Jeremy Hunt: My right hon. and learned Friend speaks with a great deal of wisdom as someone who has occupied this post and he is absolutely right. All Health Secretaries face pressures of the kind we are going through now and face difficult winters. Winter is always a difficult time for the NHS and, as the Prime Minister said, we need a short-term plan to help—that is what our plan of creating about 5,000 extra front-line clinicians this winter alone is doing—but we must also consider the long-term plan. That involves finding a better way of looking after vulnerable older people other than through A and E departments—that means better care in the community, better support from GPs and better community services—and that is exactly what we are doing.

Barbara Keeley: Bolton Royal hospital is one of the hospitals declaring a major incident. The context is as follows. The Little Hulton walk-in centre was closed, when it saw 2,000 patients a month. Salford city council had £100 million cut out of its budget, so 1,000 people this year are losing care packages. I have an elderly constituent who was admitted to Bolton Royal following poor care. It is obvious that those things are causing the problem. When will the Secretary of State take responsibility?

Jeremy Hunt: We take responsibility and I take responsibility for everything that happens in the NHS. Let me tell the hon. Lady what we are actually doing, because there have been some serious bed capacity issues in Bolton. Bolton has had £3 million this winter to help deal with those pressures, which has included £340,000 to spend on additional beds in the hospital supporting the A and E department and more than £100,000 to pay for additional staff in A and E. Overall, compared with in 2010, there are 114 extra doctors and 571 extra nurses. She should welcome that, rather than trying to make a political issue of it.

Jesse Norman: May I remind the House that the private finance initiative, which expanded hospitals to 100 from zero after 1997, created at least £2 billion to £10 billion, and possibly even £20 billion, of additional costs that could now be used? In Hereford, the hospital is too small because of PFI. I have estimated that £30 million could have been spent on the hospital if contracts had been properly implemented in the first place. That is why my hospital, which declared an incident this week, has been struggling and it is quite wrong to suggest otherwise.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I congratulate the doctors and nurses who are working very hard in his local hospital and point out that there are a number of historical problems. The £71 billion of PFI debt is one of those and it means that more than £1 billion every year is diverted from the front line. We have done something about the top-heavy management structures and, as a result, across the NHS we have 9,000 more doctors and 3,000 more nurses. It is very important in this debate that we focus not only on short-term pressures but on dealing with the long-term issues in the NHS. That is what we want to do in his area and in every area.

Kevin Barron: On 9 December, a member of my family was admitted to Rotherham hospital through A and E after a fall at home. She was told two days later by a doctor that there was no medical reason she should be in hospital. She spent her 93rd birthday, on 24 December, in Rotherham hospital and was discharged on Monday of this week, having at last got a care package together. Does the Secretary of State think that the cuts to Rotherham borough council’s social services have helped or hindered the situation?

Jeremy Hunt: We need to have much better working between the health and social care systems. If the right hon. Gentleman supports that, he should support the better care programme, which from April of this year will see co-operation between the local NHS and local authorities in 150 local authority areas for the first time. Instead, Labour is calling for that plan to be halted.

Robert Halfon: Will my right hon. Friend thank the staff of the NHS at Harlow Princess Alexandra hospital for their passion and commitment? Although the Government have invested £5 million in our accident and emergency services, issues in nearby hospitals mean that the pressure on our A and E has been immense. Princess Alexandra hospital is one of the busiest by far for attends by bed and with one in five ambulances arriving from out of the area. The PAH is now admitting four more patients a day that it was this time last year. Will my right hon. Friend meet me and the chief executive of the Princess Alexandra hospital, and will either he or the Minister responsible for hospitals visit the hospital to see what can be done to help the situation?

Jeremy Hunt: I am very happy to do that and I am aware of the significant pressures at the Princess Alexandra. I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he is supporting staff in his local hospital, getting behind local plans. It is a mistake to say that there is always a new national initiative. Lots of people in the NHS have been saying over the past few days that they do not want new national initiatives. They want exactly what my hon. Friend is doing; they want people to support their local NHS and not to turn it into a political football.

Hazel Blears: On Monday evening, the trust of Salford Royal hospital, which, as the Secretary of State knows, is an excellent hospital, declared a major incident. I am pleased to say that the pressure has been dealt with and it has now been lifted, but it is clear to me that many of the thousands of elderly and frail people in hospital have dementia, which
	means that they stay longer and are readmitted more often. I welcome the better care fund, but it will not be enough. There needs to be a whole systems change to prevent people from being admitted in the first place, with better support and more action by GPs. We need to get on with that urgently.

Jeremy Hunt: I agree entirely with the right hon. Lady. The better care fund is a first step, but it is only a first step. It is happening from this April, but we have the NHS England five-year forward view, which is the long-term plan to improve community care. I agree that Salford Royal is an excellent hospital. It had £3.5 million to help it deal with winter pressures this year, but it is also a good example of how integrated care between the acute trust and local community services can make a real difference, and it is delivering some of the safest care in the country.

Paul Burstow: May I pay tribute to the accident and emergency staff at my local hospital, St Helier, whom I met on Monday? One thing they made clear to me is that although there is no single cause of the pressures on A and E at the moment and there is therefore no single solution, they want certainty about the long-term plans for NHS funding. Although the down payment of £2 billion announced in the autumn statement was very welcome, will the Secretary of State say whether the Government or any Government in whom he might participate in the future will deliver the additional £8 billion necessary to secure the closing of the funding gap that Simon Stevens identified?

Jeremy Hunt: When we did the autumn statement last year, we asked Simon Stevens and NHS England how much they needed for their plan next year and they told us it was about £2 billion, so we made that commitment. We also said that that was a down payment on delivering the entire plan, not a one-off payment. I agree about the importance of long-term certainty over funding, but the most important thing in that regard is to have a strong economy that can deliver the money that will support our NHS. It is only Government Members who have shown that they are capable of delivering that strong economy rather than the instability that would come from disastrous economic policies.

Grahame Morris: The Secretary of State and Prime Minister accuse the Labour party of using the NHS as a political football and as a weapon. May I advise the Secretary of State that the NHS is a weapon—a very powerful one—for the treatment of illness and the relief of disease and suffering, and that it is being blunted by this Government and his Department under his stewardship? I met the chief executive of City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust about the NHS crisis and the A and E crisis, and one of the problems he identified was the lack of sufficient staff and the need to recruit locums. What is the Secretary of State doing about recruiting more staff and how many vacancies are being carried?

Jeremy Hunt: I agree that we need more staff, but the hon. Gentleman should welcome the fact that under this Government there are 9,000 more doctors and
	3,000 more nurses. Such an increase was made possible by a reorganisation that took money away from bureaucracy and management and put it on to the front line. What is wrong is for the Leader of the Opposition to say that he wants to weaponise the NHS—turn it into a political weapon. The NHS is not a political weapon; it is there for patients. Labour should be ashamed of trying to turn it into a political football.

Alan Haselhurst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the declaration of a major incident by Addenbrooke’s hospital has caused concern among my constituents whose non-urgent admissions have had to be postponed? Is he also aware that the hospital is currently looking after more than 300 people aged over 85, which is in itself a remarkable tribute to the NHS? However, such a figure underlines the fact that we have to give more attention to the integration of health and care issues.

Jeremy Hunt: I am aware of the problems at Addenbrooke’s. Indeed, the main issue, as my hon. Friend rightly says, is delayed discharges relating to care. The chief executive is running the command and control system and working with the local authority to facilitate the discharges that are necessary and to de-escalate the situation. The hospital has £2.2 million for its winter pressures support and 185 more doctors than four years ago.

Derek Twigg: The national health service in my constituency is under immense pressure, as are the adult services. It has been known for some months now that the number of acutely ill people coming into hospital has been growing. Has the Secretary of State investigated the reasons for that significant increase, which I am hearing about from the chief executives of the hospitals? If he has, what are those reasons? Is it to do with access to primary care, or problems with adult social services? Will he tell the House now?

Jeremy Hunt: We have looked into that matter in huge detail. There are probably three broad factors that are behind the increase in demand. One is the ageing population. There are 350,000 more people over the age of 75 than four years ago. The point is that if someone of that age goes into A and E in the winter, there is an 80% chance they will be admitted to hospital and quite a large chance they will stay in hospital for some time. The second factor is changing consumer expectation among younger people who want faster health care—[Interruption.] That is what Professor Keith Willett, the director of emergency care at NHS England, said, and Opposition Members should listen to what our clinical leaders are saying. The third factor is a refusal by NHS trusts to do what they were pressurised to do in the past, which is to cut corners to hit targets.

Angie Bray: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there have been significant changes to hospital services across north-west London. There is considerable concern from some of my constituents that the closure of A and E departments at Central Middlesex and Hammersmith hospitals has led to some of the increasing pressure elsewhere. Will he tell me whether there is any evidence of that?

Jeremy Hunt: I am aware that there have been particular pressures at Northwick Park hospital, but I am also aware that a plan is in place in north-west London to have weekend opening of GP surgeries to improve out-of-hospital provision. The pressures that are faced there are like those in the rest of the country—very severe. We are doing everything we can to support the hospitals in that area with our winter pressures plans.

Diane Abbott: The Secretary of State spoke about the algorithms used by 111 call handlers. Does he appreciate that a frightened mother with a sick child is not really interested in algorithms? What she wants to know is that her child can get the medical help that they need promptly. He has told the House that he has been having meetings on this winter crisis since March. Is he not a little bit embarrassed that we now have people queuing to see their GPs first thing in the morning, ambulances queuing outside hospitals, people being treated in tents outside hospitals, and old people staying in hospital longer than they need to because there is a lack of funding and no proper co-ordination between health and social care?

Jeremy Hunt: Of course I regret any individual incidents where people do not get the care they need promptly. The hon. Lady will know that the solutions to such problems are not always things that can be done overnight. If she looks at the record of joined-up care over the past few years, she will see that this is the first Government to encourage 150 local authority areas to sit down with their local NHS and jointly plan care for the most vulnerable people in the social care system. That is a very big step forward. We are also doing nearly 1 million more operations every year across the NHS. In accident and emergency, the number of people being seen within four hours has gone up by nearly three quarters of a million since the start of this Parliament. That is real progress, but of course there are long-term issues, and we will focus on those as well.

Andrew Percy: I congratulate Goole hospital on hitting its target 99.7% of time, and the trust as a whole on hitting its target 93% of the time. I spent my Christmas volunteering in the NHS at A and E and with the ambulance service. Staff repeatedly told me that as first responders what they see are more old and frail people needing to be admitted to hospital. That situation was not helped by 50,000 hospital beds being cut by the previous Government. One way of dealing with the problems would be to move to a community paramedicine model and to use the skills of our ambulance services more. I encourage the Secretary of State to ensure that NHS England is seriously looking at that option.

Jeremy Hunt: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the shining example he gives to everyone in this House by being a first responder? I do agree that one thing that we could do in the next year is to integrate better what happens in the ambulance services, out-of-hours GP services and 111. Individually, they are all doing a good job, but they could do a much better job if what they did was integrated.

Gisela Stuart: Facts are important in this debate. There is now good evidence to show that overcrowding in emergency
	departments increases mortality and length of stay. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the figures for hospitals are available in the House of Commons on a monthly basis, so that we can correlate spikes following emergencies with what happens to mortality rates? If mortalities increase, the problem is even more serious than we think it is.

Jeremy Hunt: I agree with the hon. Lady. It is critical that we look at the data carefully. I will see whether the data on mortality rates are available on a monthly basis. I will be as interested as she is to see it.

Barry Sheerman: I have just been visiting a much-loved elderly relative in hospital and I have seen what a wonderful job our nurses are doing and the pressure that they are under, but may I tell the Secretary of State that Huddersfield and Calderdale used to have an amazingly good partnership of people in the health service working together. The antagonism now between trusts and commissioning services has destroyed that partnership. All we have now is tension and stress. We no longer have a partnership delivering health care in our country.

Jeremy Hunt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the hard work of the doctors and nurses at his local trust, but the feedback I get from the front line is of closer partnership working than has ever happened before, with the local authorities and the local NHS sitting down together planning what they will do for the most vulnerable older people through the better care fund. I want to encourage that everywhere I can.

Richard Ottaway: I join the Secretary of State in praising Croydon University hospital staff who have been working their socks off in recent days, but is he aware that CUH has a recently modernised subsidiary in Purley with a minor injuries unit, which is open only in the afternoons, and an under-used X-ray department? Will he explore with Croydon commissioning group whether those facilities can be used full time, because that would take the load off the A and E department at Croydon University hospital?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to explore that. All these suggestions need to be considered very carefully. That trust has had 40 extra doctors and nearly 300 extra nurses and £4.5 million to help with its winter pressures this year. Perhaps some of that money could be used for that purpose. I am happy to look into it.

David Lammy: As the Minister who introduced the precursor A and E target, may I say that the Secretary of State was right to continue with the target? Making the target work was dependent on NHS Direct, delayed discharges, the integration of social care, and targets in the rest of the hospital, particularly on cancer. He has demolished that whole system. Will he now apologise for the absence of those targets, the problems in delayed discharge and the scrapping of NHS Direct?

Jeremy Hunt: I am afraid that what the right hon. Gentleman says is simply not correct. We have continued with key operational targets. A number of them are under pressure,
	but when we look at each of them we see that the reason is that the NHS is treating more people than ever before but demand is outstripping supply. For example, nearly half a million more people visited A and E in the most recent quarter than in the last quarter of the previous Labour Government, and we have 1,000 more doctors in our A and E departments. That tells us that, along with short-term help with these pressures we need a long-term solution, which is what this Government are committed to.

Andrew George: This is a serious and complex issue, and one of the factors causing it is that many seriously ill patients cannot be admitted to acute hospital wards because there are insufficient beds. In the light of that, I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to an NHS Confederation report from May 2006, “Why we need fewer hospital beds”. I cautioned at the time that it would be unwise to pursue such a policy without first front-loading primary and social care. Will he look at enhancing acute hospital beds until primary and social care have the capacity to help out the acute sector?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. In fact, I was talking with someone senior at the Royal Cornwall hospital on Monday about the particular pressures there. Indeed, some of the funding that we allocated to the NHS in the autumn statement for next year is designed to do precisely that; to allow hospitals to maintain bed capacity while we ramp up facilities in community and primary care. It is very important to get the timing absolutely right.

Lilian Greenwood: Yesterday the emergency department at Nottingham’s Queen’s Medical Centre faced such intense pressure that the trust was forced to enact its internal incident plan and cancel planned operations and out-patient clinics. Higher than expected admissions and delays in discharging patients who are well enough to leave hospital have been creating problems for many months. How can we resolve what is now a crisis if the Secretary of State will not even acknowledge that his Government’s deep cuts to social care are undermining the efforts of our dedicated NHS and social care staff?

Jeremy Hunt: We are doing an enormous amount to support social care. Some £3.9 billion of NHS funds has been given to the social care system over this Parliament, and we have strongly encouraged local authorities to ensure that any savings they have to make are done through efficiency savings, not cuts to front-line services. The hon. Lady’s local hospital has received £11 million in funding to help it through the winter. We are doing a huge amount to support the NHS through a difficult period, and she should support those efforts.

Tony Baldry: It is obviously important that those who need to be treated in A and E are treated there and that those who do not go to those parts of the NHS where they can be treated best. Does my right hon. Friend agree, therefore, that the initiatives taken by clinical commissioners in Oxfordshire where, for example, they are trying to triage patients essentially at the door of A and E so that those who need to go in
	can do so and those who need primary care get it, will help reduce pressures on A and E and ensure that people are treated in the right part of the NHS?

Jeremy Hunt: Those are exactly the kinds of initiatives that can make a big difference—indeed, they are recommended by the College of Emergency Medicine. Of course, the long-term solution is to ensure that people are better looked after at home so that they do not need to end up at the door of a hospital. That is why more proactive care by GPs—we plan to recruit 5,000 more GPs over the next five years—should mean that that becomes less of a pressure point.

Yasmin Qureshi: The Royal Bolton hospital in my constituency yesterday declared a major incident. As of 1 pm yesterday, there were 53 people in the A and E department, 15 waiting for a bed, some for more than 12 hours, and a number of non-urgent operations were cancelled. I first want to thank the hospital for all its hard work, because there have been problems for the past few weeks. I would like the Secretary of State to deal with the crisis by immediately reopening walk-in centres, because their closure is the reason so many people are going to A and E, and have proper funding given to local authorities so that they can put in place a proper health and social care budget for the elderly and vulnerable.

Jeremy Hunt: There have indeed been pressures at the Royal Bolton hospital, particularly in relation to bed capacity and intensive care unit capacity. All patients on the wards have been reviewed and discharges have been created—the plan was to discharge between 30 and 50 patients before the end of yesterday. We are doing a lot to support the hospital. It has been given £3 million in winter money, £350,000 to create extra bed capacity and £100,000 for extra A and E staff.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. A very large number of hon. and right hon. Members are still seeking to catch my eye. As always, I am keen to accommodate as many as possible, but I simply point out to the House that there is a statement to follow by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and other business. I therefore appeal to the House to help me to help individual Members. That is to say, prolonged statements prior to questions are undesirable. Pithy and succinct questions are the order of the day, in which important exercise I think we can be led by an illustrious parliamentarian, Mr Philip Hollobone.

Philip Hollobone: Kettering general hospital is experiencing its busiest winter on record. The three hon. Members for north Northamptonshire, the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and myself for Kettering, are working together to attract extra investment into our A and E. When we go to see the Secretary of State’s colleague, the hospitals Minister, next week, will he encourage the Minister to receive us warmly and favourably?

Jeremy Hunt: I think that my hon. Friend should always be able to count on being received warmly and favourably. There are particular pressures in Northamptonshire. I
	am planning to have a conversation with the chief executive of Northamptonshire county council in the next week to see whether there is anything more than can be done to facilitate discharges and relieve the pressure at Kettering.

Mark Reckless: I greatly welcome the £13.4 million of investment recently signed off for Medway hospital’s A and E department. Does the Secretary of State also understand the hospital’s need for a further £20 million of capital for medical wards around the A and E department to support integrated care and improve the throughput of patients to assist in turning around Medway hospital?

Jeremy Hunt: I am aware of those proposals, which we will obviously look at carefully. I am also aware that there are big pressures in the A and E department at Medway, but there are also other, more profound issues to do with the leadership at the hospital. The hon. Gentleman should rest assured that we are taking every step possible to try to turn things around.

Sarah Newton: I recently spent a shift at the Royal Cornwall hospital’s A and E department and saw at first hand the fantastic work it is doing. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the clinical team and with Mr Virr, who leads the department so well, that people need to remember that A and Es are for life and limb emergency treatment on the day and that they should consider the excellent alternatives, such as minor injuries departments and out-of-hours GP services, before automatically going to A and E?

Jeremy Hunt: I commend my hon. Friend for her tremendous interest in the Royal Cornwall hospital and for her campaigning to support its efforts. I spoke with the chief executive earlier this week about the particular challenges with discharging patients. I also spoke with the deputy chief executive of the South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust about the dramatic increase in 999 calls this winter. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the public can help us by ensuring that they use alternatives to A and E wherever possible.

Meg Munn: When I led an integrated health and social care team 20 years ago, we found that carers no longer being able to care was a key reason why people went into hospital and into care. Will the Secretary of State now look again at the eligibility criteria introduced under the Care Act 2014 and ensure that a much greater number of carers can get support, because at the moment the number is being reduced?

Jeremy Hunt: Under that Act we introduced national eligibility criteria to try to remove the postcode lottery that had existed previously. We have also introduced new rights for carers that require local authorities to take account of the pressures on them. I think that we are going in the right direction, but I accept that there is always more that can be done.

David Davies: Some 92.6% of patients in England are seen within four hours, as opposed to just 83.8% of patients in Wales. If Labour wants to make this a political football, why does it not
	play an away game down in Cardiff, where it is in charge and responsible for the disgracefully lower standards that we receive there?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully, as ever. The rhetoric that we have heard from the Labour Benches today is interesting for its absence when we have debates on Wales. It seems to the public watching this that there is one rule for England and one rule for Wales, and that Labour is satisfied with lower standards in the parts of the country that it runs.

Geraint Davies: The NHS is in financial crisis, with more money needed for A and E, yet we are spending £10 billion a year on diabetes because people are consuming twice the daily amount of sugar that they should be consuming—nine teaspoonfuls for men, which is equivalent to a can of Coke, or six for women, which is equivalent to a light yoghurt. Does the Secretary of State agree and will he support my Bill, which is published today, which requires manufacturers to express sugar content in teaspoonfuls on products to empower consumers to make rational choices in order to manage down overall obesity—

Mr Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Order. These are extremely important matters, but their relevance to the question of A and E was not immediately obvious to me, added to which, unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman—

Geraint Davies: rose—

Mr Speaker: No. I am not debating with the hon. Gentleman; I am telling him. His inquiry suffered from one little disadvantage: it was too long.

Jeremy Hunt: I have spoken to the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) about his Bill. Part of the long-term solution is to give people better information about sugar consumption. We will certainly look at what the Bill proposes.

Anne Main: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), and I were very unhappy that the A and E was closed and moved to Watford. Since then Watford hospital has had a turbulent time. This morning the chief executive resigned, having got part-way through a process of consultation. May I ask for the consultation to be put on hold until the new chief executive is in place and has their feet under the table? We do not need more turbulence in our hospitals in west Hertfordshire.

Jeremy Hunt: I am sorry to hear the news about the chief executive at Watford. I am aware of the pressures there and I agree with my hon. Friend about the need for stability in management as much as possible over the next few months.

Bill Esterson: One of my constituents wrote to me about her elderly mother who faced a wait of many hours for an ambulance to A and E. My constituent told me that at A and E she saw patients on trolleys backed up through the corridor to ambulances waiting in the car park. Meanwhile, patients were waiting
	at home, unable to get those same ambulances. She described the scene as “a war zone”. Is it not the case that A and E is unable to cope, the ambulance service is unable to cope, and patients who need to go to A and E are suffering?

Jeremy Hunt: I agree that there are real pressures in A and E across the system, but it is important to remind the public that even under that pressure, nine out of 10 people continue to be seen, treated and sent home within four hours. That is an extremely impressive record for the people working very hard in our A and E departments.

Chloe Smith: The Norfolk and Norwich hospital declared a major incident. Its medical staff say that care is safe. Will my right hon. Friend join me in supporting Norwich NHS staff and their innovative urgent care unit, will he urge Norwich GPs to apply to the access fund, and will he condemn some of Labour’s political leaflets in Norwich which carry fake NHS stories, as told to me by NHS workers?

Jeremy Hunt: It is important for all parties to behave responsibly when the NHS front line is under such pressure. My hon. Friend might want to remind her Labour opponents locally that in Norwich there are 97 more doctors than four years ago and 145 more nurses, all possible because of a strong economy.

Alison Seabeck: Last week 1,631 people visited Plymouth A and E. One in 10 of them waited more than four hours. Staff are showing great dedication and doing extra shifts, but that is not sustainable. Will the Secretary of State please take his head out of the sand and, if he is serious about depoliticising the issue, will he take up the shadow Secretary of State’s offer of a cross-party summit to look at all the issues behind the crisis?

Jeremy Hunt: I was talking to a doctor at Plymouth last night and I recognise that there are real pressures there and staff are working very hard. The long-term solution is to back the non-party political plan that the NHS itself has put together under the leadership of Simon Stevens—the “Five Year Forward View”. We made the big call in our autumn statement to find £2 billion, which is what he said the NHS needed next year, and I hope Labour will support that. Then we can have the kind of consensus that the hon. Lady asked for.

Paul Uppal: In 2003, a dozen years almost to the day, I accompanied my grandmother to A and E. We arrived at 8 o’clock in the morning. She was not allocated a bed until 9.30 that evening. May I impress upon my right hon. Friend that money alone is not the issue? It is important that we push ahead with the long-term plan and do not adopt a short-term opportunistic approach.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is right. It is important to say that lots of people in the NHS have been asked in the past few days on the media what the issues are, and they have not been saying that it is about money. They have been saying that it is about reforming the structures.
	That is why, as well as the money that is available for this winter, we need to look at the plans that we can put in place to improve access to GPs, to improve the co-ordination between the health and the social care systems, to deal with issues that prevent people going to hospital in the first place. That is what this Government want to do.

Seema Malhotra: Many of my constituents in Feltham and Heston have raised with me their concerns about being able to access GP services, some having to wait weeks and in the mean time having to seek emergency help. Does the Secretary of State now regret the Government’s decision to axe Labour’s guarantee of a GP appointment within 48 hours?

Jeremy Hunt: If the hon. Lady regrets that, she might want to ask her Labour colleagues in Wales why they also axed the 48-hour target. We do need better access to GPs. That is why we are funding the training of 5,000 more GPs over the next five years. With targets, we must be careful of unintended consequences. When we had that target in place, a quarter of people who asked for an appointment in more than two days were told that that would not be possible, because we found that people played the target. That is why we do not want to go back to that system.

Justin Tomlinson: As set out in the College of Emergency Medicine’s 10-point plan to improve A and E, co-location of GP surgeries is key. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

Jeremy Hunt: I agree with pretty much all the College of Emergency Medicine’s 10-point plan. That has very much informed our approach to helping the NHS over this winter. Co-location of GP surgeries on hospital sites is very helpful, but we also need more proactive care for the most vulnerable older people before they feel the need to go to hospital. That will be at the heart of the changes that we want to see.

Andy Slaughter: The reason that west London now regularly has the worst waiting times for A and E, with up to 50% of patients waiting more than four hours, is a direct result of the Secretary of State’s decision to close the Hammersmith and Central Middlesex A and E four months ago. These are sick people who need A and E, not GP services. We have GP services at those hospitals. What we need is for him to cancel or at least review the downgrading of the A and E departments at Charing Cross and Ealing hospitals to GP-led emergency centres. Will he at least do that?

Jeremy Hunt: I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that if we are to solve the problems in his area and others, we should listen to the doctors about the structures that will work best. The structures that we put in place are the structures that doctors advised us to set up. That is why we are supporting them.

Peter Bone: Mrs Bone would like to offer best wishes for the new year to the Secretary of State. The reason she can do this is the excellent health care provided by the NHS in both Kettering general hospital and Northampton general
	hospital. Locally, the commissioners and the acute hospitals are together working out a plan to deal with accident and emergency. Is not that the way forward?

Jeremy Hunt: Indeed. I pass on my best wishes for the new year to Mrs Bone. Like many people, she has benefited from superb NHS care. A million more people are having operations every year under this Government, and 700,000 more people are being seen within four hours at A and E under this Government.

Gavin Shuker: The NHS is a system, which is why cuts to social care and other parts of the system affect A and E. With that in mind, and with 14 hospitals in a state of emergency, will the Secretary of State review the plans that are in place should a winter crisis of cold weather come along at this very vulnerable point?

Jeremy Hunt: It is interesting that what the hon. Gentleman did not want to talk to the House about was his own local hospital, which is performing extremely well for A and E. It would be good if more of those on the Opposition Benches talked about the good things that are happening in the NHS, including nine out of 10 people who go to A and E being seen within four hours.

Rehman Chishti: I thank the Secretary of State for the £13.4 million given to Medway Maritime hospital’s A and E department. Will he assure me that everything that everything that can be done is being done to turn around hospitals in special measures such as Medway, which had the seventh highest mortality rate in 2006 yet nothing was done? Will he also join me in paying tribute to all the front-line staff who do a fantastic job at Medway?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to do that. One of the things that this Government are most proud of is what we have done to turn around hospitals with entrenched low standards of care following the terrible tragedy at Mid Staffs, with 18 hospitals put into special measures and six of them turned around. Despite all the pressure on me and on this Government to hit targets, we are sending out signals to the system, loud and clear, that targets matter, but not at any cost, and that we do not want corners cut when it comes to patient safety.

Graham Jones: Last weekend at Royal Blackburn hospital’s A and E, which I have been concerned about for quite a while, 18 ambulances were waiting outside. That was revealed not by the NHS but by a whistleblower, who described the situation as “chaos”. Is it happening because there are too many patients putting too much pressure on the NHS or because of mismanagement of the NHS by the Conservatives?

Jeremy Hunt: It is because of unprecedented demand caused by a range of factors. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the facts, he will see an NHS that is treating more people more quickly, with more doctors, more nurses and more operations than ever before. Sometimes, though, as I said yesterday, people on the front line feel that they are running just to stand still because there is so much pressure. That is why the £700 million in our winter plan and the money we are putting in to back the five-year forward view next year are so important.

Karen Lumley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should not be playing party politics with the NHS in the way that my opponent in Redditch is by putting out leaflets saying that I am systematically voting against the NHS, but that we should be working together with our trusts and partners in ensuring that we get through this problem, as we are trying to do in Worcestershire?

Jeremy Hunt: I absolutely do agree. Labour Members should talk to some of the front-line NHS workers in their own constituencies, who will tell them that the last thing they want at this time is for the NHS to be a political football.

Jonathan Ashworth: The Secretary of State will know that major incident status was declared at Leicester hospitals this week for the seventh time in three months. In the week before Christmas, just 67% of patients at Leicester Royal Infirmary in my constituency were seen within the four-hour target, and clinicians, who are working flat out, expect pressures to increase over the next three months. What is he now going to do to support clinicians in Leicester and get a grip of this situation?

Jeremy Hunt: I am aware of the situation in Leicester. The hospital has had significant space pressures in its emergency department, and a couple of nights ago it had a high in-flow during one night, but it is absolutely on the case in trying to resolve this. What are we doing? Well, we have put in £9.2 million of winter pressures money to make sure that whatever people decide the right solution is, it is not through lack of resources that they cannot do it.

Chris Skidmore: Last Saturday night, while I was visiting my wife’s family in Leicestershire, my baby daughter suddenly became quite ill. Rather than going to A and E, we rang the 111 service and were quickly referred to Loughborough urgent care centre, where we had fantastic treatment; I pay tribute to the staff. Does this not go to show that we need to prioritise new models of urgent care, as set out in Simon Stevens’s review?

Jeremy Hunt: We absolutely do that. Telephones and the internet provide different ways to get the right advice to people quickly. The 111 service is taking a considerable amount of strain at the moment, and we have put in more money to support it. We are investing a lot more in tele-health and tele-medicine, and a lot more to help GPs who want to give people out-of-hours appointments. In the long run, that is the way we will reduce the kinds of pressures that my hon. Friend talks about.

Helen Goodman: Over three years ago, I raised with Ministers problems about the North East ambulance service that had been pointed out to me by the paramedics, but unfortunately they were brushed aside. My constituent, Violet Alliston, had the terrible experience of her partner ringing for an ambulance three times in the course of an hour before the ambulance came. She then died. This is obviously completely unacceptable. Why will not the Secretary of
	State look again at the resources he is taking out of the North East ambulance service, the skills base of the call handlers, and the triage system?

Jeremy Hunt: I am extremely sorry to hear the story that the hon. Lady talks about, and I know that the NHS will investigate it fully. We are not cutting resources to ambulances, though. We have 2,000 more paramedics than four years ago, and £50 million is being put in this winter. Of course, we need to look very carefully into the particular case that she mentions and make sure that any lessons are learned.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I really am keen to accommodate remaining colleagues, because I understand the interest in this subject. May I appeal to colleagues to put single, short supplementary questions without preamble? Now, who might be a master of the genre—Mr Richard Graham?

Richard Graham: Thank you, Mr Speaker—I will seize the moment.
	Part of the long-term solution is attracting and retaining more nurses. Will my right hon. Friend encourage the National Health Executive to allow the university of Gloucestershire to run pre-registration training courses for nurses so that we can attract and retain more local nurses?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to do that, and also to welcome the 80 new nurses in my hon. Friend’s local area over the past four years.

Andy Sawford: The Secretary of State will be aware that there are particular issues at Kettering General hospital’s A and E unit. It has improved its performance, but it has been described, to the shock of all the MPs in the area, as the worst seen in the country. We have done an awful lot of work. On Tuesday we are bringing the local health organisations together to the Department. Will he encourage his ministerial colleagues to give the green light to our plan for our area?

Jeremy Hunt: We will look at that very carefully. Of course, anything that can help to relieve pressure on A and E departments is our top priority at the moment.

Fiona Bruce: My constituent, Mr J. Hollinshead, rang Ashfields surgery, Alsager, for an appointment at 8.30 am on 2 January. He was given one for 10.30 am, when his doctor referred him for three tests to be done with the practice nurse at 11.30 am, then on to Leighton hospital for an X-ray, and he was home by 1.30 pm. His response: “How good is that?” Is not that a truer picture of the NHS under this Government than the negative messages coming out from Labour Members?

Jeremy Hunt: I agree that we need to recognise the successes of the NHS, and there are many of those successes. The reason we need to do that—I urge Labour Members to remember this—is that it is very important for the morale of people working in the NHS that we publicly recognise where they are being successful.

Clive Efford: Is it not true that this Government set out with a plan to close nine out of 31 A and Es in London, including the one at Lewisham, as directed specifically from the Secretary of State’s office? Does he regret that? What state does he think the A and E services in south-east London would be in if he had been successful, in the face of public opposition, in closing that A and E?

Jeremy Hunt: First, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, there were never any plans to close that A and E, and he should desist from scaremongering about what was happening at Lewisham hospital. He should also remember that when this Government came into office—[Interruption.] The plans—

Clive Efford: You idiot—it went to court!

Mr Speaker: Order. First of all, it is unseemly to squawk, and I think it would be accurate to say that what I heard was a squawk. I am not sure if there is a verb “to squawk”, but there was a squawking sound. What is worse, it was unparliamentary language, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman used a word that he will now wish to withdraw.

Clive Efford: I withdraw it unreservedly, Mr Speaker, but the public out there will draw their own conclusions.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his withdrawal and I note what he says.

Jeremy Hunt: The plans were to continue to have an A and E at Lewisham but to take some of the higher-risk patients to another hospital. Those are the plans that we originally had that have now been changed. What I will say to the hon. Gentleman, though, is that there were problems with South London Healthcare Trust for years and years. This Government dealt with them and sorted them out, and that means that his constituents are getting better care than they otherwise would have done.

David Morris: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the staff at Royal Lancaster Infirmary on meeting their A and E targets in November? Will he also share my revulsion at the Opposition putting out a leaflet saying that there are all kinds of things wrong with the A and E and that it is going to close?

Jeremy Hunt: That is exactly the kind of scaremongering, frankly, that is incredibly demoralising for those who are on the NHS front line right now. I urge Labour Members to think before they start doing things that make a difficult situation even worse.

Kerry McCarthy: The South Western ambulance service came close to declaring a major incident on 27 December, and local hospitals warned of unprecedented demand last weekend. What is the Secretary of State doing specifically to help hospitals and the ambulance service in the Bristol and Avon area to survive the winter?

Jeremy Hunt: As I mentioned earlier, I have talked to the chief executive of South Western ambulance service about the particular pressures it has faced, such as the 25% increase in 999 calls. We are doing a lot of things,
	including helping to recruit more paramedics. We have 40 more paramedics starting for the London ambulance service this month, and we are doing what we can to help the South Western ambulance service as well.

Stephen Mosley: About a third of the patients attending A and E at the Countess of Chester hospital are from the Welsh side of the border. They choose to go there because they know they will get treated a lot quicker in England than they will in Wales. Why is that the case?

Jeremy Hunt: The main reason is that Labour in Wales chose to cut the NHS budget, whereas in England we chose to protect and increase it.

David Crausby: Before a major incident was declared yesterday morning, 76 patients were awaiting transfer to social care in the Royal Bolton hospital—nearly four wards-full—so when is the Secretary of State going to do something effective about the crisis in social care that is causing mayhem in our accident and emergency department?

Jeremy Hunt: I recognise the pressures that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, but last year, for the first time, the local NHS and the local authority in Bolton sat down together to plan social care for the most vulnerable people—his constituents—who need such joined-up care and have wanted but not had it for so many years. With the better care programme from this April, we will start to see some real improvements.

Henry Smith: In 2005, the Labour Government closed the accident and emergency department at Crawley hospital, but services are now returning to the urgent treatment centre. Does my right hon. Friend believe that such centres play an important part in relieving pressure on emergency services?

Jeremy Hunt: They absolutely do. One thing we must do better is signpost people to the different parts of the NHS, such as walk-in centres, urgent treatment centres, GP surgeries or A and E departments. That is why the 111 service is so important in giving that advice at the earliest possible stage.

Alan Whitehead: Does the Secretary of State now regret the cuts inflicted on Southampton social care provision—they were draconian, disproportionate and possibly motivated by political football—given that Southampton city council has been unable to support the Southampton general hospital by moving people into social care and away from accident and emergency? Will he have a word with Communities and Local Government Ministers to get that put right?

Jeremy Hunt: If the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about that he might want to talk to the shadow Chancellor, who this week publicly ruled out any extra funding for social care.

Ben Gummer: I was at Ipswich hospital this morning to talk to the senior clinical team. They have exceeded their targets in A and E—it is the fifth best performing hospital in the country—and they have done so because of their work. Will the Secretary of State
	congratulate them, and does he regret the politicking that undermines their incredible efforts in the service of my constituents?

Jeremy Hunt: The services that the Ipswich team have been delivering are absolutely brilliant, and I congratulate them. I thank my hon. Friend for his support for their work, which I know is so important for the people of Ipswich.

Diana Johnson: The Secretary of State said that 14 major incidents have been declared. I am told by a senior front-line worker that many hospitals are declaring internal major incidents—they have done so for some time—because that is more politically expedient and does not get into the press. How many internal major incidents have been declared in the past month?

Jeremy Hunt: To my knowledge, over the past few weeks there have been 15 major incidents, including internal ones. Three have now been stood down, making a total of 12 at the moment.

John Stevenson: The Cumberland infirmary in Carlisle is coping and improving. However, to improve more quickly, it needs to conclude the acquisition by Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust as soon as possible. Will the Secretary of State do everything he can to help to achieve that, as I believe it will lead to better health care, both in A and E and generally, in Carlisle?

Jeremy Hunt: I am very sympathetic to my hon. Friend’s view. Indeed, I have spoken to him about it on several occasions. I very much hope that the merger can go ahead as soon as possible.

Kate Green: What is being done to address staff well-being during this exceptionally pressured period? Repeated pressure on A and E—with staff being required, or volunteering, to do extra shifts—does in the end put pressure on staff, and may cause burn-out and risk to patients. What is being done to attend to that issue?

Jeremy Hunt: There are two things. First, as I am sure the hon. Lady does, I take every opportunity to praise the work being done by staff through a very difficult and challenging period. Secondly, the practical way in which we can most help them is to try to recruit more staff where we possibly can, and to make sure that resources are not a barrier to recruiting more staff. We have about 5,000 more nurses in hospitals compared with 12 months ago, and that has made a difference.

Meg Hillier: The Secretary of State stood up and said that he takes personal responsibility for everything that happens in the NHS. Given that his Government undertook a costly and time-consuming reorganisation, does he now regret that people took their eye off the ball in relation to the highly predictable population shifts that have led to the pressure on A and E?

Jeremy Hunt: I am afraid that that is an example of the politicisation of the NHS that people find so distressing. Those reforms were not enacted in Wales, which is run
	by the hon. Lady’s party, and A and E performance there is significantly worse. It does not make any logical sense to blame A and E performance on those reforms.

Julie Hilling: Royal Bolton hospital says that it is in crisis because it cannot discharge patients. The Secretary of State says that the hospital and local authority in Bolton are talking to each other, but Bolton council has had £100 million-worth of cuts. What will he do to reverse the cuts in social care that have created the crisis in our hospital?

Jeremy Hunt: If the hon. Lady is making a criticism, I would ask her what she is going to do, because the shadow Chancellor confirmed this week that he will not find extra money for social care. I will tell her what we are doing. We are merging the social care and local NHS systems to try to stop people being pushed from pillar to post, and to give them the joined-up, compassionate, safe care that we think is an absolute priority. That is happening in Bolton—I have visited facilities in Bolton that are displaying excellent care—and we should support such efforts, not criticise them.

Tom Blenkinsop: In January 2013, I raised with the Health Secretary the incident in which an 84-year-old lady had to wait 11 hours for an ambulance. This Christmas, a 101-year-old lady had to wait six hours for an ambulance, and an 89-year-old pensioner also had to wait 11 hours for an ambulance. When do individual incidents of failure become a pattern, and is the Health Secretary himself an individual incident of failure?

Jeremy Hunt: I take huge interest in individual examples of where things have gone wrong, and that has informed a lot of my approach to the job. Just like A and E departments, when ambulance services get calls, they have to triage them and deal with the highest-priority calls quickest. The calls they get can sometimes be dealt with after a period of hours, but other calls are much more urgent. The important thing for ambulance services is to know that we are backing them with more paramedics, more investment and more ambulances, and that is what we are doing.

Steve Reed: One of my constituents, an 80-year-old woman, collapsed at home over the weekend. She had to wait an hour for an ambulance to arrive, and she then waited 10 hours in A and E before being treated by medical staff. For most of that time she was on a trolley in a corridor. Will the Secretary of State apologise to my constituent? Does he not regret wasting billions of pounds on a top-down reorganisation of the health service, instead of using the money to fund the additional doctors and nurses who could have treated my constituent and thousands of others like her across the country more quickly?

Jeremy Hunt: Management costs in the NHS doubled under the hon. Gentleman’s Government; under this Government, they have been cut by £1 billion a year, which is paying for 9,000 more doctors and 3,000 more nurses. That is the reality of the NHS under this Government—1 million more people are getting operations every year—and if he really believed in the NHS, he would support and welcome that, rather than criticise it.

Stormont House Agreement

Theresa Villiers: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the political talks in Northern Ireland, which culminated in the Stormont House agreement on 23 December. When I last had occasion to update the House, after the visit to Belfast of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Taoiseach Enda Kenny, I reported that 10 weeks of talks had so far failed to deliver consensus on any of the key issues. I made it clear that the stakes over the coming days were high, and that without an agreement before Christmas we were unlikely to get so close again for months, or even years.
	Further intensive discussions duly took place on Wednesday 17 December and continued on Thursday and Friday of that week. Resuming on Monday 22 December, the negotiations continued overnight, concluding some 30 hours later at around lunch time on the 23rd. At that stage, we presented the parties with a final heads of agreement, reflecting the many weeks of discussion and with the input of both the UK and Irish Governments, in accordance with the three-stranded approach. Key issues covered included the finances of the Stormont Executive, reform of the devolved institutions and the legacy issues of flags, parading and the past. I will take each in turn.
	The agreement sets a path for the Executive to put their finances on a sustainable footing for the future, averting the impending budget crisis that was threatening the stability and credibility of the institutions. That includes the implementation of welfare reform, with certain agreed adaptations to be paid for out of the Northern Ireland block grant, alongside efficiency measures and reforms to the public sector. Measures to improve the way the devolved institutions work, including provision for an official Opposition, a reduction in the number of Government Departments and a cut in the number of Members of the Legislative Assembly by 2021 are also part of the agreement. A commission on flags, identity and culture is to be established by June and, based on the party leader discussions in the summer, proposals set out by the Government will open the way for a devolved system of adjudicating on parades, to replace the Parades Commission.
	Crucially, the agreement also sets out broad-ranging new structures to deal with the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past. They include an oral history archive, a new historical investigations unit to look at the deaths that occurred as a result of the troubles, and an independent commission for information retrieval to be established by the UK and Irish Governments. All those bodies will be required to operate in a balanced, proportionate, transparent and accountable way, preventing any group or strand of opinion from being able to subvert the process or try to rewrite history.
	The new system puts the needs of victims and survivors at centre stage and has reconciliation as a key goal. Consensus on how to deal with Northern Ireland’s past has eluded successive Governments since the Belfast agreement was signed 17 years ago, so the significance of the progress that has been achieved should not be underestimated. The Government have agreed to contribute
	£150 million over five years to help fund the structures dealing with the past, meaning that the Police Service of Northern Ireland can devote its efforts to policing the present rather than the past. That funding forms part of a wider package of significant financial support from the Government amounting to about £2 billion of additional spending power. That is made up of a combination of new funding and important flexibilities in relation to existing resources, and it is targeted at Northern Ireland’s specific circumstances—the legacy of its divided past, its divided society and its overdependence on the public sector.
	Last, but certainly not least, the agreement paves the way for legislation to devolve the power to set the rate of corporation tax for Northern Ireland. A Bill will be presented to the House shortly for First Reading. If the Stormont parties press ahead on agreeing their final budget and on delivering welfare reform legislation, the Government will use all their best endeavours to get the corporation tax legislation on to the statute book before Dissolution. The parties in Northern Ireland have made it clear that they believe that corporation tax devolution can help them rebalance the economy and attract investment, not least because of Northern Ireland’s unique position of having a land border with the Republic of Ireland. I welcome the fact that it is this Government who are delivering that momentous and transformative change, subject to the important conditions contained in the agreement, and I call on the Opposition today to commit to supporting the Bill as a key part of the Stormont House agreement.
	The agreement involves compromise on all sides, and it has been widely welcomed. First Minister Peter Robinson hailed it as “a monumental step forward” for Northern Ireland. Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness called it “a remarkable achievement” and
	“a fresh start we need to seize with both hands”.
	President Obama said that Northern Ireland’s political leaders have shown that
	“there is a way to succeed for the benefit of all”,
	and Secretary of State Kerry called their actions “statesmanship, pure and simple”.
	Securing an agreement is not the end point—far from it. There is much work ahead on implementation for the Executive, for the UK Government and, where appropriate, for the Irish Government. However, I give this assurance: if the parties in the Executive press ahead on that, the Government will implement our side of the agreement, and we will do it faithfully and fairly. There are no side deals.
	In closing, I pay tribute to Minister Charlie Flanagan for his crucially important contribution to the process. I would also like to thank the United States Administration, and in particular Secretary Kerry’s special representative, Gary Hart, for their support. I thank all the officials at the Northern Ireland Office who worked so hard on the process. Above all, I would like to record my appreciation for the leadership and determination shown by Northern Ireland’s Executive parties.
	In the Government’s view, the Stormont House agreement represents a genuine and significant step forward for Northern Ireland, offering the prospect of real progress on some of the most intractable issues faced there—problems that have defied multiple attempts to resolve them over the years. This agreement gives the
	five parties in the devolved Executive the chance to refocus and work together with renewed confidence for a more prosperous, more stable, more united and more secure future for the people of Northern Ireland. I urge them to seize the opportunities it presents to build a brighter future for Northern Ireland, and I commend the agreement to the House.

Ivan Lewis: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. The Opposition welcome many aspects of the agreement that she has outlined to the House. It is not perfect, but it is a genuine advance on the stalemate of the past two years. I congratulate the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary of State and their counterparts in the Irish Government on their painstaking and, I am sure, at times painful facilitation of the talks. I also recognise the contribution of US Secretary of State Kerry’s special representative, Senator Gary Hart.
	Throughout the political impasse of the past two years, we have repeatedly called for the Government to play a more active role. We hope that the right lessons have now been learned about the consequences of disengagement for political stability and momentum in Northern Ireland. I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that there is no room for complacency. As we have seen in the recent past, unresolved issues such as parades and flags have the potential to fuel public concern, disorder and, ultimately, political instability.
	I want to pay tribute to Northern Ireland’s political leaders for stepping back from the abyss and restoring some level of public confidence in their capacity to move Northern Ireland forward. It should be acknowledged that they face unique challenges in managing the transition from a society scarred by conflict and sectarianism to a more normalised society. However, that acknowledgement does not mean exemption from difficult political choices about priorities, or an expectation of blank cheques from this or any future Westminster Government.
	Turning to the agreement itself, we welcome the adoption of a viable budget for the next financial year. It is right that it includes some elements of welfare reform while excluding the pernicious bedroom tax, which an incoming Labour Government will scrap. However, we remain concerned by the Government’s rush to introduce legislation on corporation tax devolution, a decision that will have profound implications for Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. We believe that there should be a proper consultation process, including an analysis of the financial impact of significant reductions in corporation tax on Northern Ireland’s block grant, before legislation is introduced in this House.
	It is good news that a comprehensive system for dealing with the past has finally been agreed. It is to be hoped that, over time, victims and their loved ones will develop confidence in the integrity of the new architecture and get the truth and justice that they have been denied for too long. We also strongly support the Government’s decision to make new investment available to boost integrated education. That is one of the most powerful manifestations of what a shared future can mean for Northern Ireland.
	I have a number of questions for the Secretary of State. What assessment have the Government made of the impact on the block grant if Northern Ireland reduced corporation tax to the levels of the Republic of Ireland? What criteria will be applied to determining whether penalties will be levied by the Treasury next year in connection with welfare reform? What is the time scale for the creation of the new system to deal with the past? What negotiating process will be put in place to deal with unresolved issues such as parades, flags, and other identity issues such as the Irish language? Finally, what process has been agreed to monitor the implementation of the agreement? I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that it is one thing to reach an agreement, but for the sake of credibility, it is incredibly important that that agreement is now implemented.

Theresa Villiers: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his expression of support for much of what is in the agreement, and for his kind comments about the work in which I and Minister Flanagan took part. As ever, I refute his allegation of a period of disengagement. At no stage have this Government been disengaged from Northern Ireland. We have actively worked throughout our time in office, not least in agreeing an economic pact that saw us working more closely with the devolved Executive in Northern Ireland than ever before, in addition to bringing the world’s media to Northern Ireland for the tremendously successful G8 conference.
	I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments about progress on budget matters. Those on both Front Benches are united on the point that there will be no blank cheques, and the Government have put forward a significant and important financial package, reflecting Northern Ireland’s specific circumstances. I was disappointed to hear his comments on corporation tax devolution, because I think that change could have a significantly transformative effect on Northern Ireland’s economy. Northern Ireland is in a unique position in the United Kingdom, because it shares a land border with a jurisdiction that has a much lower rate of corporation tax. I urge the hon. Gentleman to urge the shadow Chancellor to allow Labour to support that change, which I believe is good for Northern Ireland.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the implications for the block grant. The Azores criteria mean that any future reduction in corporation tax in Northern Ireland needs to be funded from the block grant. Various estimates have been made of what that might look like, but at this stage it is impossible to be certain, not least because no final decision has been made on what the rate would be reduced to.
	On the criteria for calculating welfare shortfall payments, the £114 million due in financial year 2015-16 is dependent on progress on implementing welfare reform. The quicker welfare reform is introduced and is up and running, the lower the shortfall payment will be. The time scale on the past is a key point, and the Government are keen to start working with the Northern Ireland Executive on the work needed for those institutions. They will certainly need Assembly legislation and in all likelihood they will also need Westminster legislation, and we are getting on with those matters.
	The agreement sets out provision for a commission on flags to be established by June, and it is important that we press ahead with that. There is clearly more work to be done on that issue and on parades, and the agreement provides for further work by the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the Executive, bringing forth options that can then be consulted on for reform of the parading system. The process for monitoring will start with its first meeting between the Executive and the Government by the end of January. The final paragraphs of the main part of the agreement set out a system for monitoring implementation, and that will be taken seriously by the Government. It will, of course, involve the Irish Government, where appropriate and consistent with a three-stranded approach, and we look forward to getting down to work with the Executive on those matters.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of her statement. What discussions has she had with the parties in Northern Ireland about moving the Assembly and the Executive towards becoming a more efficient decision-making body?

Theresa Villiers: My hon. Friend will find a section in the agreement on that. There is a commitment to draft a protocol on the use of the petition of concern, and to set out more clearly the sorts of issues on which it should be deployed. There are important changes to the way the Executive work, so that Ministers from the smaller parties can get business on to the agenda. There are proposals for reform of the MLA expenses system, and a commitment to a future reduction in the number of MLAs. I am sure that more could be done in terms of institutional change, but the agreement is a real step forward. In particular, I draw the House’s attention to the provision for an official Opposition for the first time in the history of the devolved institutions.

Peter Hain: I congratulate the Secretary of State and all the party leaders on reaching an agreement, not least in view of the Prime Minister’s astonishingly premature exit from the previous summit, and his lack of engagement, which has been greater than that of any Prime Minister for more than 20 years. How can the Secretary of State be sure that this process will not long-grass the key flashpoint issues of parade and flags? On corporation tax, is she aware of Sir David Varney’s 2007 report to the Treasury, which showed that 95% of businesses in Northern Ireland do not pay corporation tax? That is not a silver bullet; it will leave a £300 million hole, or 3%, in the block grant, if there is equalisation with the Republic of Ireland.

Theresa Villiers: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister has been closely engaged with this process, and the visit he made along with the Taoiseach was significant in moving things forward. The financial package that he was able to agree with the Treasury was a crucial part of our progress. This Government have delivered significant achievements on some of the most difficult issues that Northern Ireland faces, and that is in large part due to work done by the Prime Minister.
	I have acknowledged that there is more work to be done on the difficult issues of parades and flags, and no one would say for a moment that this agreement is the last word. I will be working, as will my officials and
	colleagues in government, to find a way forward on those matters, and ensure that they are not long-grassed and that we make real progress. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, those issues can cause huge disruption in Northern Ireland and poison the political relationships that are crucial to making the Executive work effectively. He says that corporation tax devolution is not a silver bullet. I agree that on its own it will not transform the Northern Ireland economy, but combined with other economic reform, a focus on skills and competitiveness, and economic reform across the board, it can have a significant and transformative effect. That is why I am disappointed that Labour is not supporting it.

Owen Paterson: I congratulate the Secretary of State on her statement, and all parties involved on showing real perseverance through some intractable negotiations. On the past, I pay tribute to all those at the Historical Enquiries Team who produced reports on cases that may have been low-profile but that nevertheless presented a real agony to relatives and friends of murder victims. I hope that the successor organisation will continue to publish such reports as they are of immense importance to those individuals. Looking to the future, the decision to introduce a Bill on corporation tax is tremendous and a tribute to all parties—the Opposition should remember that all political parties wish for it. Grow NI has overwhelming support from the business community in Northern Ireland, and estimates a cost of £200 million to £300 million if the tax were dropped to the level of the Republic. That is a very small investment in total Government spending of £23 billion in Northern Ireland. What issues does the Secretary of State believe might impede the progress of that Bill on to the statute book before March?

Theresa Villiers: I agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of reports by the HET. Paragraph 30 of the agreement provides that the historical investigations unit will continue to provide those types of reports to families as part of its work. I pay a warm tribute to the work my right hon. Friend has done on corporation tax. He championed it alongside Grow NI, business groups and Northern Ireland’s political leaders, particularly the Democratic Unionist party, and it is a tremendous achievement that the Bill is now so close to being presented to Parliament. That is a real tribute to my right hon. Friend’s work as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The Chair is obviously keen to accommodate everybody, but can I please appeal to each colleague to put one pithy question, not a miscellany of inquiries for which, frankly, we do not have time?

Nigel Dodds: On 15 December, the Secretary of State told this House:
	“the north Belfast panel”—
	on parades—
	“will be constituted shortly.”—[Official Report, 15 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 1136.]
	The Secretary of State knows that we did not negotiate on the issue of parades in the talks and that, of course, the Ligoniel parade was outside the ambit of those
	talks, but can she tell the House why, eight days later on 23 December, she went back on her word, did not consult the Unionist parties, did not consult this House and has not made any further statement other than to retract and give to Sinn Fein the opportunity to announce that the panel was not going ahead? Why did she do that? Is that not an act of gross bad faith? Is it not something that will cause immeasurable trouble in the days, weeks and months ahead? The festering sort of the denial of human rights to the people of Twaddell is not going to go away. If she does not intervene and do something—it is her responsibility; it is not devolved—it will get worse and worse in the weeks and months ahead.

Theresa Villiers: I fully appreciate how strongly the right hon. Gentleman feels. I am absolutely determined to continue to work with him and with Northern Ireland’s party leaders to find a way forward to ensure that we find a way to resolve the parading impasse. As we have had the chance to discuss, the trouble with the panel was that it did not have enough support. It never had nationalist support. The Unionist coalition that had called for it to be set up in the first place could not produce a public statement in support and had actually broken up—some of the smaller parties had walked out. None of the smaller parties were making the case for the panel publicly, and there was a distinct lack of enthusiasm among the smaller parties. I regret the way the news came out. I have apologised to the right hon. Gentleman for that, but now we need to move forward and find something that will work to try to resolve the impasse in north Belfast.

Andrew Robathan: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and all the staff who worked on this. It is a real achievement. My right hon. Friend knows that I am not much given to flattery, but it is real achievement for which she deserves congratulations. She said that this is not the end. Going forward, will she ensure that those who were perhaps stumbling blocks—I understand Sinn Fein were a little bit difficult about welfare reform—are not allowed to stop this process in its tracks, and that we all work towards an Northern Ireland that is exactly like the rest of the United Kingdom, where people can go about their daily lives without fear, without corruption and without criminality?

Theresa Villiers: I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind comments. I echo his praise for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who worked with great assiduousness and devotion on these matters alongside, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, many of the civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office. It is a tremendously important step forward that the political parties together were able to find a compromise on welfare reform. It does involve a top-up from the block grant to reflect Northern Ireland’s circumstances. Agreement on welfare reform was essential to putting together a sustainable budget. The important thing now is for a final budget to be agreed by the end of January and for progress on a welfare Bill passing through to consideration stage in the Assembly before the end of February. Those are the next steps.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Can she possibly give us a little more detail on the specifics for the implementation of the legislation in the Chamber here in Westminster and in the Assembly? What particular legislation will apply to both? In relation to victims and the past, the detail is quite light. Many people will believe that the information sought in relation to inquests by those who have been deliberately affected—the victims and survivors—will not be met, because it falls far short of Haass and Eames-Bradley.

Theresa Villiers: I expect the House to receive news on legislation on corporation tax in the very, very near future. We are working on how the structure of legislation in the Assembly and Westminster on the rest of the package is precisely to be formulated. The procedures for review and monitoring are set out in paragraphs 73 to 75. In relation to inquests and the provision of information to families, it is crucial that we all work on this. The agreement has a commitment to reform. There is an acknowledgement that the current inquest system is not meeting the needs of the families effectively enough and not delivering the Government’s obligations under article 2 effectively enough. That will be a hugely important priority for the UK Government. We hope to work closely with the Department of Justice in the work that it will no doubt be doing on this.

Nigel Mills: I welcome the fact that an agreement was reached, but will the Secretary of State set out exactly how much extra money has been given to the Northern Ireland Assembly to make the deal happen? Does she regret that, yet again, we have shown that if the parties of Northern Ireland hold out for long enough, Westminster will eventually cave in and send more money over?

Theresa Villiers: I can outline the financial package, but it is a fair one. It was not a blank cheque. It recognises that Northern Ireland faces specific problems that the rest of the United Kingdom does not. In outline, it involves £150 million over five years to help to fund work on the past; flexibility to use £700 million of capital borrowing to fund a voluntary exit scheme for four years; a contribution of up to £500 million over 10 years of capital funding for shared and integrated education; £350 million of borrowing for capital infrastructure projects; and the flexibility to use the receipts from asset sales and capital funding to repay the welfare shortfall payments.

Kate Hoey: I welcome the replacement of the Parades Commission, which in my view has done more harm than good. May I take up the point made by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds)? There is one parade that is causing huge long-term problems in north Belfast. Will the Secretary of State get involved personally? Will she talk to the Orange Order directly? Will she visit Twaddell avenue camp, as many of us have, and actually talk to the people there to understand why they feel so strongly about this very small amount of road that people are deliberately trying to stop them going back along? Until that is sorted, none of this talk about parades commissions or new bodies will work. She has the power to get this solved.

Theresa Villiers: I assure the hon. Lady that I will certainly be meeting the Orange Order and others who have a very strong interest in these matters. I fully appreciate the huge importance that both sides of the dispute place on them. I have been actively involved, and I will continue to be actively involved to try to find a way forward. This dispute is in nobody’s interests and we need to find a way to solve it.

Stephen Lloyd: I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement and I pay tribute to all the party leaders, and the Prime Minister, who helped to make it happen. I am disappointed that there was not more progress on the Parades Commission. We have kicked it back to June and to the middle of the marching season, which is going to be rather difficult. I would also like to pay tribute to the decision to have an independent audit on the cost of division. That will be terribly important to help us move forward. My question, however, relates to paragraph 69 and shared and integrated education. The Secretary of State knows there is a world of difference between shared education and integrated education. I would be grateful for her take on what she believes that means and what impact it will have on education in Northern Ireland.

Theresa Villiers: Clearly, there is much work to be done on parades. Whatever had gone into the agreement, there were always going to be decisions to be made on the implementation process. I agree that the proposal to have an independent audit of the cost of division is very important—a point championed in particular by the Alliance party. There is obviously a slightly blurred division between integrated education and shared education, but what they both have in common is that they ensure that the children who go through those schools have the chance to get to know and learn alongside children from other community backgrounds. That is a crucial means of helping to deliver a shared and united future for Northern Ireland. That is why the Prime Minister has given a substantial commitment to supporting integrated and shared education through funding.

Lady Hermon: With so many people throughout Northern Ireland feeling profoundly disillusioned with the performance of the Northern Ireland Assembly, will the Secretary of State accept that it is imperative that the political parties make the agreement work this time and that they do so with a generosity of spirit? I speak as someone who absolutely loathed direct rule and who is passionate about devolution and ensuring that the Assembly survives and succeeds to serve the whole of Northern Ireland.

Theresa Villiers: I welcome the hon. Lady’s sentiments. She is absolutely right. This is an opportunity for Northern Ireland’s political leaders to make it work. Anyone who thinks the agreement takes us in the wrong direction needs to reflect on the alternative: increasing chaos over the budget and increasing tension over a range of issues. This is an opportunity. There is work ahead of us all to implement the agreement, however, and I hope that everyone in the House will urge the Northern Ireland parties to seize the opportunity and make the agreement work for all of Northern Ireland.

Crispin Blunt: My right hon. Friend will recall the behaviour of the Democratic Unionist party over the vote on 42-day detention in the last Parliament, the deal for which cost this country about £1 billion. From the numbers she just gave my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), it would seem that this latest deal has cost the taxpayers of Great Britain another £1 billion. Does she, like me, fear for the fate of this country if, by some mischance, there is not a clear Conservative majority at the next election and the Administration has to rely on that lot over there?

Theresa Villiers: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Conservatives are campaigning for a majority Conservative Government at the general election, not for coalitions of any sort. I will not comment on the history of the 42-day vote. I am keen to emphasise the crucial role played by First Minister Peter Robinson and the DUP in delivering a significant package of reforms for Northern Ireland.

Naomi Long: I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and her team and to the Irish and American Governments, who were involved in the talks over a protracted period. On many of these issues, the Stormont House agreement provides a road map for Northern Ireland, particularly around finances, but much deeper reform is needed than simply filling the holes. I also believe in dealing with the past. However, on other key and volatile issues, such as parading and flags, this has simply become a parking garage where things will be left to sit until the difficult period over the summer. What will she do personally to remain engaged on those key issues? It is clear that there is not the will across all parties to come to a mature resolution on them.

Theresa Villiers: I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments and pay tribute to the sterling work done by her and her party in moving things forwards on all these issues through the cross-party talks and in other ways. She is right to describe the agreement as a road map. As ever with agreements in Northern Ireland’s history, this is a further staging post, and the next journey along the road will be implementation. Of course, I will be directly involved in keeping everything moving on implementation. Given the comments we have heard, I will no doubt be spending a lot of time on parading matters over the coming weeks.

Oliver Colvile: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her hard work and all the political parties in Northern Ireland on delivering this agreement. However, may I press her for a little more information about how we can rebalance the economy in Northern Ireland? As I understand it, 80% of the economy there is dependent on the public sector. I am keen that there is not a significant impact on taxpayers in my constituency.

Theresa Villiers: On rebalancing the economy, as I have said, the devolution of corporation tax—assuming that the conditions are met—could have a transformative effect. In addition, the economic pact sets out other means to deliver the competitiveness that Northern Ireland needs to rebalance its economy. It will require reform of the planning system—that was proposed in
	the Assembly, but has not progressed as yet; crucially, a strong focus on skills and education; and measures to reduce red tape, which is why the pact contains a commitment by the Executive to a reduction of red tape. The Enterprise Minister has followed that up with some important work.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I welcome the advance copy of the statement that the Secretary of State gave us, but I am rather perplexed at the attitude towards corporation tax of the Labour Front-Bench team. We have worked hard to achieve this, and for it to be delayed would be a shame.
	On the financial agreement, the Secretary of State said that she would allow the proceeds of specific agreed asset sales to be retained entirely by Northern Ireland. What are those assets? Will she confirm whether they include the port of Belfast, Translink, the water service and/or Northern Ireland car parks?

Theresa Villiers: It is important that the Executive give proper consideration to those and all other assets of a similar nature, but it would not be right for me to prejudge what sale proposals the Executive might develop. Each asset will be considered in relation to the provision in the agreement’s financial annexe.

Bob Stewart: I add my voice to those who are congratulating my right hon. Friend, her team and everyone involved in getting agreement at Stormont House? It is fantastic.
	I am pleased that there is to be a new historical investigations unit. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the investigation will continue into what happened to the late Captain Robert Nairac GC and where his body might be located?

Theresa Villiers: I reiterate my sympathies and condolences to Robert Nairac’s friends and family, who must feel the pain of their loss even after so many years. Of course, a process is already in place for seeking the remains of the disappeared, and I do not think it would necessarily be impacted on by the HIU’s work. However, as part of the implementation process, we will work out how it will interact with existing bodies.
	I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words about the achievement of this agreement. There were many people who said a Conservative-led Government could not do this kind of thing. Well, they have been proved wrong.

David Anderson: On corporation tax, I am quite happy for the north to adjust its corporation tax to compete with the south, but this is also a Westminster Government, so we need to be clear that doing that will not disadvantage other parts of the UK, including places such as the one I represent.
	On the demise of the HET, the Northern Ireland Committee heard just before Christmas that because of budget cuts to the police, the work of the HET, which we thought would end in three years, will not end for nine. We have been told today that there will be legislation in this House and Belfast. When does the Secretary of State envisage the legislation going through and the HIU being put in place? What does she think the time scale for concluding all those investigations will be? Will it be shorter or longer than we thought?

Theresa Villiers: Obviously, the PSNI has made some difficult announcements in recent weeks in seeking to absorb budget reductions, but the funding package and agreement, when implemented, will provide some relief. I hope that means that the work the PSNI indicated would take much longer than it had originally expected can be completed more quickly. We have put forward our proposal, and we hope that the HIU will complete the bulk of its work within five years.
	On corporation tax, it is key to recognise that Northern Ireland is different and that there are specific reasons to justify its devolution in Northern Ireland that do not apply to the rest of the UK.

Robin Walker: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the patience and resolve she has shown in helping the parties reach an agreement, particularly on the milestone of establishing an official Opposition in Northern Ireland, which is an important step forward in the normalisation of politics in the Province.
	On the past, it is great that we have seen a degree of agreement between the parties, but does she agree that nothing in the agreement should imply an amnesty for the criminal gangs who preyed on the people of Northern Ireland for so long?

Theresa Villiers: Absolutely not. There are no amnesties in the agreement. This Government do not support such things, and they would not be justified in this instance.

David Simpson: The Secretary of State mentioned parades a number of times, and those will be a problem in the future. Does she therefore understand the frustration of my constituents at the Drumcree protest, which has been ongoing for 16 years? The panel gave us the possibility of finding a model to deal with that parade, but the rug has again been pulled from under us. Does she understand the complete frustration?

Theresa Villiers: I do, and the hon. Gentleman and I have discussed the Drumcree situation on many occasions. It is important in north Belfast to focus urgently on finding an inclusive process to bring the two sides together. That is why I will be meeting many of the different groups involved in the next few days and discussing these matters with the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and the First Minister tomorrow.

Damian Collins: I congratulate the Secretary of State on her role in securing the agreement. Does she agree that the proposed independent commission on information retrieval should attach the same importance to requesting information from the British Government as is attached to pursuing the cases of the disappeared people who were victims of IRA murders during the troubles?

Theresa Villiers: Certainly, and it is crucial that the work on the disappeared is allowed to continue. Thankfully, it has been possible to find answers in relation to a number of cases. Sadly, many have so far not been resolved, but the good work done by the Independent
	Commission for the Location of Victims Remains is a good model on which to base the ICIR’s work for the future.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Let me say to the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) that if he is faced with the choice of the Scottish nationalist party or a Unionist party, he may have cause to think again about the comments he just made.
	The Secretary of State will join me in welcoming the progress we have made on dealing with our troubled past in Northern Ireland. She knows the hard work that was put in during the talks to achieve this outcome, which is a victim-centred outcome. However, many of those victims were victims of people operating from the jurisdiction of the Irish Republic; indeed, some were murdered in the Irish Republic. Will she ensure that the Irish Government hold good to the commitment and obligations they have undertaken in the agreement to co-operate fully with all the institutions dealing with the past and release all papers, documents and files held by Irish state forces that will assist in the apprehension of those responsible for those murders?

Theresa Villiers: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his hugely important work in the cross-party talks and for delivering what I believe is a good agreement overall, although his input on the past has been particularly highly valued. It is important that all participants—the UK Government, the Irish Government and the Executive parties—play their part and live up to the obligations they have undertaken. Minister Flanagan has repeated on many occasions that his Government would co-operate with those institutions; I have every confidence that they will do so.

Gregory Campbell: I commend the statement and acknowledge the comprehensive efforts made by all involved in reaching the agreement. The Secretary of State alluded to the need to ensure that the process did not become a rewriting of history. Will she go further and indicate to the wider public in Northern Ireland that there has to be a distinction between the genuinely innocent victims in the past who were murdered and butchered, and those who caused that murder and butchery and happened to be caught up in violence of their own hand?

Theresa Villiers: Of course there is a very clear distinction between those two. I know that there continues to be controversy around the way that the law defines a victim, which has been the barrier to taking forward the proposal for a pension for severely physically injured victims. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the agreement commits to there being further work on whether we can find a way to enable that pension to be taken forward without raising those problems around the definition of “victim”. It is a difficult issue, but one that we should all continue to try to find an answer to.

Liz McInnes: Failure to agree on contentious issues such as flags and parading has led to violent protests, as we all know. What additional steps has the Secretary of State taken to ensure that the PSNI has adequate resources to guarantee security for the people of Northern Ireland and the capacity to police public events?

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Lady makes an important point. The agreement will help partly by providing extra funding for institutions that are doing work on the past that is currently done by the PSNI, but the financial annex attached to the financial package also contains an obligation on the Executive to do what they can to minimise reductions in police funding. Given the financial realities, it seems inevitable that there will be reductions in PSNI funding to some degree, but the UK Government would certainly like these to be kept to an absolute minimum, which is why it is in the financial annex to the agreement.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for her statement and for all the hard work that she and many others did to achieve the Stormont House agreement. We in the Democratic Unionist party ensured that the bedroom tax would not be implemented in Northern Ireland thanks to the flexibilities and the top-ups that we secured through the Northern Ireland block grant. Sinn Fein, of course, opposed that, but they never turned up in this Chamber to vote against it. However, this time Sinn Fein have joined with the DUP to agree a deal, which means that there is now no obstacle to a revised welfare reform Bill for Northern Ireland. Can the Minister set out the time scale for welfare reform in Northern Ireland and the legislative process through this House?

Theresa Villiers: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment. It is a hugely important step that the five parties reached an agreement on a way forward on welfare reform. It is indeed a matter for the Northern Ireland parties that they have applied the top-up in relation to certain matters, including the spare room subsidy, which they are funding through their block grant. It is now vital that progress is made on implementing welfare reform as soon as possible, so that we can press ahead with the rest of the agreement.

Mark Durkan: The Secretary of State will be glad that I will not rehearse the issues of welfare and finance that many of us concentrated on in the negotiations. She is right that we should not understate certain aspects of the agreement. However, it would also be wrong to oversell other aspects, where we have superficially strimmed the long grass, not least in respect of parades. Does she now regret her misadventure in proposing a panel on north Belfast, believing that that would somehow assist the talks, when we now know from the Unionist parties that their position was that, on the expected promise of the panel, they were not going to negotiate on parades in those discussions?

Nigel Dodds: Rubbish.

Mark Durkan: We heard it from them today and we heard it from their leaders this week. That is why we had all the nugatory discussions in Stormont House about parades, and therefore ended up with no negotiations on parades, and those who wanted a panel have now ended up with no panel. That is the Secretary of State’s fault.

Theresa Villiers: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and the Social Democratic and Labour party for the work they did on welfare reform and, in particular, the past,
	where their ideas have been highly influential. I think everyone would acknowledge that there is more work to be done on parades, and that it will be crucial to take that forward for the good of all in Northern Ireland whose lives are potentially disrupted by parades and for those who want to conduct their parades and express their culture in the way that they have for hundreds of years.
	As for the panel, as I said to the right hon. Member for Belfast North, unfortunately there was just not enough support for it. It was well intentioned, and I still believe that we need to find a way to mediate between the two sides and find an inclusive process that can engage as widely as possible. It became apparent that the panel would not be able to do that. We need to find a way forward, and I will be working with the Northern Ireland Executive and their parties to seek to do that.

William McCrea: The Secretary of State mentioned the establishment of a commission to consider flags and emblems. Does she agree that it is absolutely outrageous that the people of Northern Ireland are not permitted to have their flag, the flag of the United Kingdom, displayed on their driving licences like everywhere else in the United Kingdom—the SDLP is trying to out-green and out-Sinn Sinn Fein—especially bearing in mind that people in Northern Ireland died to keep Northern Ireland a part of the United Kingdom and beat the provos?

Theresa Villiers: These are hugely sensitive issues and these matters have been under discussion in various forums for many years, and the proposal to have a broader civic conversation and debate about finding a way forward is a good one. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it was first proposed by Dr Richard Haass in the work that he and Meghan O’Sullivan did. We simply do not have all the answers on how all these matters need to be resolved. Including as many people as possible in finding a way forward on these sensitive and crucial questions of identity is an important step towards that.

Sammy Wilson: The additional money made available to Northern Ireland through flexibility and borrowing, and the extra money for the additional institutions, will be welcome. Despite what the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) said in his little Englander outburst, which helps nationalism more than the nasty nationalists of this House do when it comes to the break-up of the Union, this is something that Northern Ireland needed.
	The important thing is to rebalance the economy as well. Will the Secretary of State spell out for us what exactly she means when she says that the Government will use their “best endeavours” to get the legislation on corporation tax through Parliament? Does that mean that that might not happen, and if not, why can she not give total clarity that the legislation will go through before the end of this Session?

Theresa Villiers: As I have said before, the reality is that introducing legislation at this stage of a Parliament runs the risk of running out of time for it, in which case we become dependent on the Opposition for getting it through. We will try to speed it through as best we can, assuming that the Northern Ireland Executive do their
	bit. We had hoped to introduce the legislation in December, in which case we would have been pretty confident of getting it through on time without the support of the Opposition. Given the delay of a few weeks, it is more uncertain. That is why I put the question I did to the shadow Secretary of State, but we will certainly try our very best to get this legislation on the statute book.

Toby Perkins: I congratulate all the parties involved in enabling the statement to be made and in achieving the agreement, which is a significant step forward for Northern Ireland. The rising inequality and rising child poverty that we have seen under this Government and their hostility to public sector work have had an impact on Northern Ireland, creating a potential breeding ground for paramilitaries and political extremists. Has the Secretary of State had any discussions with the Chancellor about the impact on Northern Ireland of the decisions this Government have taken and of increasing poverty? What is she going to do to support a peaceful future by ensuring that Northern Ireland, and the rest of the United Kingdom, is able to have a more equal future than it has had in the recent past?

Theresa Villiers: I have had many discussions with the Chancellor on Northern Ireland matters. This Government’s economic plan is working for Northern Ireland. There has been significant inward investment and a significant number of jobs created, and the Northern Ireland economy is predicted to grow at a faster rate than the economies of many major developed economies around the world. The economy is turning around in Northern Ireland, which is a result of the work done by this Government.

Points of Order

Fiona O'Donnell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 4 December in answer to written question number 216656 about cuts to the east coast main line by the new operators Virgin and Stagecoach and the reduction in the number of stops, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport with responsibility for rail franchises, the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), replied with a list of stations that would receive a reduction of one daily stop. This included Dunbar station in my constituency, and as you can imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, it caused great upset and distress for many of my constituents. However, today I was contacted by Stagecoach which informed me that my constituents and I have been misled. What assistance can you give me to ensure that the Under-Secretary corrects her answer, provides more accurate answers in future and apologises to my constituents?

Eleanor Laing: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her intention to raise a point of order. Unusually, it seems that she has had better news than she expected. The hon. Lady is well aware that the content of a ministerial answer is not a matter for me, but I am quite certain that if the Minister has inadvertently given a wrong answer, she will take the first opportunity to correct it. I have every confidence that those on the Treasury Bench will convey to the relevant Minister the points that have been made.

Clive Efford: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the urgent question on A and E, I challenged the Secretary of State to say whether he regretted the Government’s recommendation to close the A and E at Lewisham hospital, and he accused me of misleading my constituents and therefore of misleading the House. I have in my hand the recommendation of the special administrator’s report, published on 7 January 2013, which recommends closure of Lewisham’s A and E and its replacement with an urgent care centre. Given that the Secretary of State accepted that recommendation and was then forced to rescind it after a judicial review in October 2013, can you give me some guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how I can get the record put straight and bring the Secretary of State back here to correct what he said because I was not misleading the House or my constituents?

Eleanor Laing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the point of order, but as I said to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell), the contents of what a Minister has said at the Dispatch Box or elsewhere is not a matter for me. He asks how he might draw attention to the facts, but he has just done so. Once again, I am confident that those on the Treasury Bench, from whom I am receiving nods of agreement, will make sure the Minister is aware of the hon. Gentleman’s point. No one wants the record of this place ever to be wrong, and it is important to correct it at the first opportunity.

Kelvin Hopkins: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Monday this week, the Prime Minister chose to make only a written statement
	on the European Council meeting instead of his customary oral statement during which Members can question him on the issues raised. Given the intensification of the eurozone crisis and its implications for Britain, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, to which there has been much opposition, and the many other important matters that have been raised, it was vital for the Prime Minister to report to the House in person and submit to questioning from Members, even if on a later day than usual. Will you use your good offices, Madam Deputy Speaker, to seek to persuade the Prime Minister to make his European Council statements orally on all occasions so that all Members have an opportunity to question him personally and in public?

Eleanor Laing: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that I might have any influence whatsoever over the Prime Minister. I can assure him that of course I do not. But he does, and it is open to him, as indeed it is to any Member, to submit an application for an urgent question, which Mr Speaker would consider. If the urgent question is truly urgent, the Prime Minister or another Minister would be obliged to come to the House. I can also advise the hon. Gentleman that if he wishes to debate the matter, he can apply to do so through the good offices of the Backbench Business Committee.

Alcohol Labelling (Pregnancy)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Bill Esterson: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require establishment of a statutory scheme providing for clear and consistent labelling of alcoholic beverages as they relate to foetal health and safety and that of pregnant women; and for connected purposes.
	Seven thousand children a year are born in the UK damaged by alcohol. That is one in every 100 births. Mild brain damage can be caused to children by even small amounts of alcohol at the wrong time during pregnancy, especially in the early stages when an embryo does not have the protection of a bloodstream. Much scientific evidence suggests that there is no safe limit when it comes to drinking in pregnancy, but sadly, not everyone is aware of the dangers. The chief medical officer says:
	“Women who are pregnant or trying to conceive should avoid alcohol altogether. However, if they do choose to drink, to minimise the risk to the baby, we recommend they should not drink more than one or two units once or twice a week and should not get drunk.”
	She goes on to say:
	“There is uncertainty about how much alcohol is safe to drink in pregnancy”.
	The CMO also says that if a low level is consumed, there is no evidence of harm to an unborn baby. However, this view is not universally shared.
	The National Organisation for Foetal Alcohol Syndrome UK tells us that there is no way to know for sure what impact drinking alcohol might have on an unborn baby. The same point is made by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. According to NOFAS, a similar amount of alcohol might affect one baby but not another. We know that heavy drinking and binge drinking during pregnancy increase the risk of foetal alcohol syndrome, which is characterised by physical deformities, but there is a lack of consensus on the effects of smaller amounts of alcohol during pregnancy, as is shown by the apparent contradiction between that advice and the advice given by the chief medical officer.
	The effects on a child can range from reduced intellectual ability and attention deficit disorder to heart problems and premature death. Many children experience serious behavioural and social difficulties that last a lifetime. In fact, what most of us take for granted is a lifelong struggle for them, and the damage that has been caused cannot be reversed. Not everyone whose mother drinks during pregnancy suffers damage that affects his or her life chances, and this is certainly not an attack on women, but the damage that is done by alcohol to too many children shows the need for action, and it shows that too many of us do not understand the potential risks of drinking alcohol at any point during pregnancy.
	In 2007, Lord Mitchell introduced a private Member’s Bill which led to a voluntary system of labelling in the UK, but not all alcohol containers feature a warning, and there is also the vital question of how effective the labels are. The label that is used is only a few millimetres high, and is supposed to show a picture of a pregnant woman taking a drink with a line crossed through the picture to suggest that the woman should not be drinking
	alcohol. However, many people do not notice the symbol or realise what it is. The fact is that the labels in this country are inadequate, as well as not being universal. However, labels on containers are not the only way in which awareness needs to be increased. In Canada, four to 11-year-olds learn about the dangers of drinking alcohol during pregnancy, which ensures that awareness is ingrained in the minds of the new generation. Posters about foetal alcohol syndrome are displayed in railway stations, airports, surgeries and shops.
	I am pleased to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), is present. During my Westminster Hall debate on 14 October, she referred to the review by the chief medical officer. That review appears to be taking a very long time to complete. I hope that the chief medical officer will listen to the British Society of Gastroenterology, which wants to see a decent-sized warning message in writing rather than just a symbol on labels.
	The president-elect of the British Medical Association, Sir Al Aynsley Green, told me that he thought there should be a much fuller debate about the risks to children from drinking alcohol during pregnancy. He suggested that the Government should examine the evidence from Canada, where education and awareness of the risks are combined with support for children, families and professionals who are dealing with the effects of foetal alcohol spectrum disorders. In the United States and in Canada, labels on all containers of alcohol include the message “Women should not drink alcohol while pregnant or trying to conceive”. In the United Kingdom, symbols are more common than warning messages, and when a written warning is used, it is so small that, like the symbols, it is hard to read. However, improving labelling is only part of the answer. We also need to help the children who are damaged, and those who are trying to support them or live with them.
	My Bill is about making sure that all the facts are available, and about avoiding confusing or conflicting advice, whether it comes from the Government or from
	other sources. The existing labels are inadequate, which is why I am calling for a mandatory system of labelling that is clear, cannot be easily missed, and gives the best advice. That advice must be for women not to drink at all while they are pregnant or trying to conceive. Such a system of labelling should be designed to reduce the number of children who are damaged at great cost to themselves and to society.
	I invite those who say that my Bill will make no difference to meet some of the children who have been damaged because their mothers did not know of the dangers and continued to drink. I invite them to talk to carers, to teachers and to NHS staff who are trying to help the children who are struggling to deal with a world in which their brains do not function properly as a result of damage caused during pregnancy. I invite them to say what they would do to reduce the number of children who are damaged during pregnancy as a result of the drinking of alcohol. If improving labelling is not part of the answer, then what is?
	To the drinks industry I say, “Consider the content of the labels now, look at what happens in Canada and the United States, and make the necessary changes without legislation.” Some children will continue to be born suffering permanent damage from the effects of alcohol consumed by their mothers during pregnancy, but evidence shows what is needed if we are to reduce the number of children who suffer in this way. So to the Government I say, “Update the guidance, and support my Bill.”
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Bill Esterson, Rosie Cooper, Tracey Crouch, Nia Griffith, Julie Hilling, Kelvin Hopkins, Barbara Keeley, Tim Loughton, Lisa Nandy, Jim Shannon, Sir Andrew Stunell and Dr Sarah Wollaston present the Bill.
	Bill Esterson accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March and to be printed (Bill 147).

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill
	 — 
	[2nd Allocated Day]

Further consideration of Bill, as amended in Committee of the whole House

Clause 24
	 — 
	Power to issue guidance

Diana Johnson: I beg to move amendment 7,page15,line21, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
	‘(5) Before giving guidance under this section, or revising guidance already given, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—
	(a) the proposed guidance or proposed revisions; and
	(b) a draft of an order providing for the guidance, or revisions to the guidance, to come into force.
	(6) The Secretary of State must make the order, and issue the guidance or (as the case may be) make the revisions to the guidance, if the draft of the order is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(7) Guidance, or revisions to guidance, come into force in accordance with an order under this section.
	(8) Such an order—
	(a) is to be a statutory instrument; and
	(b) may contain transitional, transitory or saving provision.”
	This would ensure that statutory guidance produced under Clause 24 was subject to an affirmative resolution of each House.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 6,in clause 29, page17,line29, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
	‘(7) To support panels exercising their functions under this section the Secretary of State must—
	(a) provide guidance on the exercise of those functions;
	(b) provide a list of approved providers for de-radicalisation programmes that may be referred to under subsection (4); and
	(c) ensure that the providers listed under paragraph (b) are subject to monitoring.”
	This would give a greater role to the Secretary of State in supporting the role of local support panels. The Secretary of State would have to provide guidance (rather than it being optional) and she would also have to provide a list of approved providers for de-radicalisation programmes and ensure they would be subject to monitoring.

Diana Johnson: Let me begin by expressing my horror at the terror attack that took place in Paris today. I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the family and friends of the victims of that attack, and, of course, we all stand in solidarity with the French people at this time.
	Part 5 of the Bill contains measures to counter extremism in communities and to deal directly with vulnerable individuals. As Ministers will recall, it was the last Labour Government who introduced both the Prevent agenda and the Channel programme, and we remain absolutely committed to supporting and, indeed, strengthening both policies. Obviously the Government reviewed Prevent when they came to office, and it is
	important for us to view the measures in the Bill in the context of the changes that they introduced. I think that those changes are a rather mixed bag, and I am not sure that they were particularly successful.
	Both Prevent and Channel require a partnership between central Government and local agencies, and amendments 7 and 6 are intended to ensure that the Government support local bodies in the delivery of both programmes. While we agree that Prevent should involve local delivery, it seems to us that the recent problems stem from central Government. There has been a marked decline in Prevent’s funding, which has fallen from £17 million a year to just £1 million. Some of that clearly resulted from a conscious decision, but there also appears to have been mismanagement. Every year £5.1 million has been allocated for local delivery, but I understand that over the past four years more than 60% of it has gone unclaimed.
	In Committee, I raised a number of concerns about the delivery of Prevent at national level, and about the monitoring and support supplied by central Government to local agencies. I am sure that the Minister for Security and Immigration, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire)—although I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) in the Chamber today—recalls that I spoke at length about my concern about the performance of the Department for Education. I do not want to go through all that again, but I think that the Government’s role should be formalised in the Bill so that we know what is expected of them.
	So, we have no problems with the principle of the general duty on public bodies to prevent terrorism, but this could mean a number of different things, and it is therefore important that the guidance is as full and effective as possible. In Committee, we tabled an amendment to mandate the issuing of guidance. As a consultation on the draft guidance was then issued—I think on the last day before the Christmas recess—we have not tabled that amendment again, but we do still feel that the guidance that has been issued, and which is subject to consultation, should be subject to a very full debate and approval by both Houses of Parliament. That is why we have tabled amendment 7.
	I shall raise some issues with the current guidance but first I want to emphasise the potential scope of the guidance. Under the enabling provisions as currently drafted in the Bill, the guidance could be written and rewritten by the Secretary of State at will. The guidance is very important because it could have a bearing on free speech, academic freedoms and patient-doctor relations, but under the Bill as currently drafted, Parliament would have no role in overseeing what is in it.
	My other concern is that one set of guidance will apply to numerous bodies, as set out in schedule 3, so will have to apply in very disparate settings. There are also real issues as to how the guidance will cover Scotland and Wales. The consultation document states:
	“Where English and Welsh authorities are different, however, the guidance has so far been drafted only to apply to the English authorities. It is the hope and intention of the UK Government that Scottish authorities will be included, and that this guidance will be applicable to authorities in England, Scotland and Wales.”
	The guidance is therefore supposed to cover all countries in the UK, but consideration has, at this stage, been given only to England. Will there be fresh consultation looking specifically at Wales and Scotland once agreement has been reached with the respective Administrations about which bodies within those countries it will apply to?
	There is similar confusion over two-tier local authorities, which was also a matter I raised in Committee. The guidance that has been issued simply states:
	“In two-tier areas, county and district councils will need to agree proportionate arrangements for sharing the assessment of risk and for agreeing local Prevent action plans”,
	but nothing more is said about how that is going to work and how the relative burden should be shared between different authorities. I have to say that I do not think that local government will find this guidance helpful in the way it is currently drafted.
	In addition to these issues about where the guidance is to be implemented, there are a number of issues with the guidance itself. My key concern with the document is that there is very little help for public bodies in identifying what terrorism actually is. The document talks about tackling both violent and non-violent extremism, but contains very little to help public bodies identify either. I think we can draw important comparisons with child abuse and domestic violence in this regard. Improving best practice in those areas has required better understanding of the indications of abuse. Everyone agrees we should stop child abuse and violent extremism, but in both cases the problem is that public bodies have often failed to spot the key signs. This document does not do enough to remedy that for extremism and terrorism.
	The guidance is very strong on procedures, but short on content. There is a real danger that the guidance could result in a series of time-consuming tick-box exercises performed by public bodies at all levels, without any improvement in the identification or understanding of violent extremism, and that is something we should all want to avoid. For example, there are frequent instructions for bodies to conduct risk assessment exercises, but no guidance on how they should conduct such an exercise, or what factors they should prioritise. If we look specifically at health care we see that duties are placed on a whole host of bodies, and then Monitor, the Trust Development Authority and the Care Quality Commission are all expected to monitor compliance. However, it is envisaged that those bodies—which are already over-stretched—should just check that processes have been followed. I therefore question whether this is the most effective way of ensuring that the Prevent agenda is implemented.
	I have similar concerns about the higher education sector. The document’s references to that sector envisage that the Higher Education Funding Council for England will be conducting monitoring and evaluation of the processes that the sector will have to undertake. I wonder whether the Minister might be able to help me understand what happens in Wales and Scotland—as far as I am aware, HEFCE covers only England.
	When I met Calie Pistorius, the vice-chancellor of Hull university, which is in my constituency, and its student union president, Richard Brooks, I was very impressed when I learned from both of them about the procedures and practices already in place at the university for dealing with external speakers and room bookings,
	for example, and for making sure that everybody understands their responsibilities and that there is effective communication. The university and its student union have been identified as one of the best examples of working together to ensure that issues of concern to Prevent are dealt with effectively on that campus, and I pay tribute to them for the work they are doing.
	All this focus on processes in the consultation document risks detracting from outcomes and wasting time and effort. At a time of huge cuts in the public sector, we should be trying to minimise the burden on public bodies, particularly those facing very low risks.
	Much has been made of this guidance applying to nurseries. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has raised that, and he makes the important point that that setting will generally face a low risk, as will district councils in the Outer Hebrides, for example, yet these bodies will still have to fulfil the processes under Prevent. The guidance document therefore needs to include some differentiation to enable this to work in practice. I want to ask the Minister about childminders in particular, as they are identified in the consultation document. What exactly is a childminder expected to do to fulfil the Prevent requirements, especially as we know that small children—boys and girls—often like to play and act using toy guns and swords? What does the Minister think childminders should be expected to do in such circumstances, in light of the Prevent consultation?
	Throughout the document there is a real failure to deliver a proper analysis of the problem. The introduction makes clear that the focus should be on “Islamist extremists”, and it is clear that a much lower priority is given to white supremacists, for example. I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions about that. Can she tell me how many referrals to the Channel programme have been for people proclaiming white supremacist views? It would be helpful to have the numbers on that. We have seen the rise of the far-right parties across Europe, and in recent days the demonstrations in Germany. Recent cases such as that involving Anders Breivik show that we should never be complacent about the dangers from the far right and white supremacists. Will the Minister address that point in relation to the Prevent consultation document?
	Why does the guidance refer to “Islamist extremists” as though that was just one single thing? The guidance states that the aim of Prevent is to tackle Muslim extremists who have an anti-west agenda, yet we know that the current conflicts in the middle east—particularly those in Syria and Iraq, which are fuelling ISIS—are not between Muslims and the west but are intra-Muslim conflicts. Intra-Muslim tensions have also been identified in numerous UK cities and linked to a series of attacks. We believe that the Prevent agenda should address such intra-Muslim conflicts as well. At the moment, those elements seem to be absent from the guidance.
	In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) talked about counter-narratives. The Muslim community is trying hard to combat sectarianism with a narrative of peace and unity, and we support it in doing that. Public bodies should be supporting community bodies in doing that, but they need guidance on how best to undertake that work. Again, that is completely absent from the consultation document.
	That leads me to my second overall criticism of the consultation document: the lack of evidence to support what is in it. If the consultation document had said that a particular piece of research revealed a problem with Prevent delivering in certain areas or identifying certain issues, it would have been much easier to understand the measures in the document, but such evidence is not there. As I said in Committee, the Government do not seem to have done enough to monitor the implementation of their revised Prevent agenda across the country and across different bodies. They are now reacting in a blanket fashion because they have not done the necessary work to identify the weaknesses of the revised programme. It is welcome that the guidance includes some brief details about what the Home Office will do to support public bodies, but this could be expanded on, and it seems almost entirely limited to the Prevent priority areas. What about the rest of the country? These duties will be placed on public bodies throughout the country, not just those in the Prevent priority areas.
	I want to ask about the Prevent priority areas, because they are a little muddled. Under the previous Government, there were 92 priority areas. This Government reduced the number to 23, but they then realised that that was not quite right. They reinstated funding to some areas, such as Greenwich, and the number of Prevent priority areas rose to 30. The consultation document says that there will be 50 Prevent priority areas, yet the Bill’s impact assessment refers to about 90 local authorities facing high risk. This is a bit of a mess. Do the Government know how many high-priority areas there are? Will the Minister tell us the actual number? Is it 90 or 50? In the light of the issues that I have raised, it is important that Parliament should have an opportunity to scrutinise the guidance, once it has been finalised. At the moment, all we have is the consultation document, which has large gaps in it.
	I turn to amendment 6 and the Channel programme, which will be placed on a statutory footing alongside the rest of Prevent. As with Prevent, it is a policy area of enormous importance, and the Opposition support efforts to strengthen it. Once again, however, the Government are placing obligations on local authorities without making provision to ensure that they will be properly and fully supported by central Government.
	Clause 28 provides for the creation of local assessment and support panels in every local authority, but once again the Bill is being implemented before a decision has been made about what will happen in Scotland. The Bill puts on to a statutory footing only a small part of the Channel process, and of course what it is putting into statute should already exist. It is surprising that the Government have not been able to provide evidence of how many councils have already created such boards, given that that information has been asked for.
	The first stage of the Channel programme is not covered by the Bill. That is the stage at which an individual is referred to the police because of concerns about radicalisation. Under the current system, numerous local bodies can make a referral including schools, colleges, universities, youth offending services, local authority troubled family teams, charities and voluntary groups. The police then conduct a screening process. Only after that does the statutory footing appear to kick in.

Bob Stewart: Does the hon. Lady agree that this provision should relate not only to public bodies? If an individual believes that someone is likely to become radicalised, it really should be incumbent on that individual to tell someone about it so that something can be done. It is not only bodies such as schools that should have responsibilities in this area; individuals should, too.

Diana Johnson: The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that we all have a responsibility in this area. My concern, however, is about the specific responsibilities being placed on local authorities and other public bodies under the Channel programme. We must make sure that we get this right, which is why I am focusing on why the first stage of the programme is not being placed on a statutory basis but the second stage is being placed. I wonder whether that is the best way of doing it. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, however.
	Only when a person has been identified as at risk will the provisions in clause 28(3) kick in. That subsection allows a chief officer of police to make a referral to the local support panel that has been set up by the local authority. My first concern is with the level of expertise that those panels must have, and that is where amendment 21 comes in. As provided for in the Bill, local support panels will have to assess the individual’s risk of radicalisation and tailor a support panel to address the risks. The issues involved are complex and varied.
	The current guidance cites 22 vulnerability indicators that could lead to a Channel referral. The panel must weigh up those factors and tailor a support package, which could have any number of elements. In some areas, however, the panel will be addressing issues that it has never faced before, such as sectarian hatred, which can be exacerbated by poorly provided support. That is why we feel that the Home Office needs to support local panels by providing an approved list of support providers who are able to give the specialist interventions needed to address the specific issues facing the individual.
	This is a crucial stage of the Channel process and it should be recognised in the Bill. My understanding is that the Home Office is already doing this work to some extent, and I welcome the Minister’s commitment on Second Reading to continue to do it, but as we are putting the obligations of local authorities into the Bill, I think we should also be placing the responsibilities of central Government in the legislation. That could be particularly important for local authorities that are making referrals for the first time. I have repeatedly asked for the number of occasions on which each local authority has made a Channel assessment and referral, but unfortunately my requests for that information have been repeatedly refused. However, there must be many parts of the country that have never had to deal with issues such as these before.
	This Government have repeatedly claimed to be stepping up efforts to stop Prevent funding going to organisations that are radicalising people, but that cannot be done unless the Home Office takes a lead in vetting those bodies. Under clause 32, the Home Secretary may indemnify Channel providers, so it is accepted that the Home Office has a role in that regard. It therefore seems reasonable for it also to have a role in assessing and
	vetting providers and ensuring that they are fit for purpose. These are really important issues. I know the Minister shares the commitment to making sure this Bill is as good as it can be and to getting Prevent and Channel right. I therefore hope she will realise that the support the Home Office is providing on Prevent and Channel needs to be reviewed again and improved, and that the guidance that has been issued as a consultation document can be improved in many areas. I hope she will feel able to accept the amendments.

Karen Bradley: Today’s events in Paris are yet another shocking reminder of the threat we all face, and our thoughts and prayers are with the families, friends and colleagues of the victims. I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in condemning that barbaric attack, and I am sure the whole House stands united with the French people in our opposition to all forms of terrorism.
	Part 5 of the Bill and schedules 3 and 4 deal with an important area of our counter-terrorism work: preventing people from being drawn into terrorism. That was subject to a long and insightful debate in Committee, and I recognise and welcome the deep interest many right hon. and hon. Members have in the area. The shadow Minister made a number of points about the Prevent programme in general, and I wish to address those before dealing with the specifics of the amendments.
	The hon. Lady made a point about funding for Prevent, so let me make it clear that this Government are committed to the Prevent programme: £40 million has been allocated for Prevent spending in 2014-15, and the spending has been £36 million in 2011-12, £35 million in 2012-13 and £39 million in 2013-14. She knows as well as anybody that the spending is not just done by the Home Office and that that is spending across government, including by local authorities, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Home Office. It is worth saying that the Prime Minister announced on 25 November that an additional £130 million was being made available for increased counter-terrorism work, which includes Prevent activity. With that funding, we will introduce a clear legal obligation on our universities, prisons, councils and schools to play their part in tackling extremism. The new funding being made available will also include additional resources for programmes to prevent radicalisation.
	The hon. Lady asked about the Prevent projects. We have delivered more than 180 community-based Prevent projects since 2011, and we are currently supporting more than 70. Prevent local projects have reached more than 45,000 people since early 2012. All our current Prevent projects are focused on the current threat, including Syria and Iraq. In the 2013-14 financial year, Prevent local co-ordinators in our 30 Prevent priority areas worked with more than 250 mosques, 50 faith groups and 70 community groups. In addition, since the revised Prevent strategy was issued in June 2011, we have trained more than 120,000 front-line public sector workers to identify and support those at risk. We are currently rolling out new updated training, through the Workshop to Raise Awareness of Prevent—the WRAP training
	programme—now in its third iteration. We have seen a significant rise in the number of referrals to the Channel programme, which provides tailored support to people identified as being at risk of radicalisation; the Association of Chief Police Officers reported a 58% increase in the past year. Since April 2012, there have been more than 2,000 referrals to Channel, and hundreds of people have been offered support.
	Let me now deal with the amendments. Amendment 7 is a repeat of an amendment first tabled in Committee, which was taken to a vote. It concerns the guidance that the Secretary of State may issue to specified authorities that are subject to the new duty to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. Under clause 24, the specified authorities subject to the duty must have due regard to such guidance in carrying out that duty. Amendment 7 would require that the guidance may only be issued subject to parliamentary approval. In Committee, hon. Members were clear that an amendment of this type was not required, at least not at that stage. Clause 24 already provides that the Secretary of State must consult before issuing guidance and, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration announced to the House by written ministerial statement on 18 December, that consultation has already begun.
	The shadow Minister asked about the draft guidance on which we are consulting. It is draft guidance, and we will be holding regional consultation events to explore further examples of best practice with those who will be subject to the duty. The consultation exercise also includes an opportunity for people to comment via the gov.uk website, or by e-mail or post. It is aimed at all those who will be subject to the duty, as well as the public at large.
	This public consultation provides sufficient opportunity for interested parties, particularly those who will be subject to the Prevent duty, to scrutinise and influence the guidance. The guidance will benefit from extensive consultation and expert input, and I trust that the final guidance that is published will be all the better for having had this period of formal public consultation. The draft guidance, which we are currently consulting on, sets out, over 40 pages, the type of activity we expect specified activities to consider when complying with the duty.
	The starting point for all specified authorities will be an assessment of the risk in their area, institution or body. Where a risk has been identified, they will need to develop an action plan to address it. Staff training and working together with other partners will be key themes.
	Let me give some examples of what we expect a specified authority to consider when complying with the duty. Local authorities should ensure that publicly owned premises are not used to disseminate extremist views. Higher education institutions should have policies and procedures in place for the management of events on campus and for the use of all university premises that apply to all staff, students and visitors. Further education providers should have policies in place relating to the use of IT on their premises. Schools and their governors should make sure that they have training to give them the knowledge and confidence to identify children at risk of being drawn into terrorism, and know where and how to refer children and young people for further help.
	The health sector should ensure that training is provided to front-line staff to ensure that where there are signs that someone has been or is being drawn into terrorism, the health care worker can interpret those signs correctly and is aware of and can locate support for them. Prisons should offer support to an individual who is vulnerable to radicalisation or move them away from an individual of concern, and those at risk of radicalising others should face the removal of privileges and segregation from others. The police should support individuals vulnerable to radicalisation, for example, through the Channel programme and support partner organisations to deliver Prevent work.
	Those are just a few examples, and the shadow Minister asked about childminders. Carers in early years have a duty of care to the children in their care similar to existing safeguarding responsibilities. We are not expecting childminders or nursery workers to carry out unnecessary intrusion into family life, but we expect them to take action where they observe behaviour of concern. It is important that children are taught fundamental British values in an age-appropriate way. For children in early years, that is about learning right from wrong and challenging negative attitudes and stereotypes—for example, if a child makes anti-Semitic remarks.

Bob Stewart: If someone, perhaps a childminder, has a worry about a threat and reports it, are they guaranteed anonymity? Is a system in place to guarantee that people are not found out, including when reports are fallacious?

Karen Bradley: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his comments. I understand that anonymity would be provided to people coming forward in that circumstance.
	The shadow Minister asked about areas with low risk. The guidance sets out very clearly that we are looking for a risk-based approach, but areas need to understand the local risk. This is the starting point, and we are clear that the type and scale of the response will vary. She also asked about the number of Prevent priority areas. The Government have changed our method for prioritisation of local authority areas since 2011 and it is now based on assessment of the risk of exposure to radicalisation in specific areas rather than on simple demographics. The prioritisation also takes into account activity that we have seen by terrorist organisations and terrorist sympathisers. The process is regularly reviewed and activity is currently focused on 30 local authority priority areas where the risk of radicalisation is identified as being higher. Those priority areas received funding for a dedicated Prevent co-ordinator and are able to bid for funding for targeted local projects to work with communities and partners. There are also a further 14 supported areas where we support projects only.

Diana Johnson: I thank the Minister for going through the answers to my questions in such detail. The impact assessment says that 90 local authority areas are at high risk, the consultation document identifies 50 priority areas and the Minister is now talking about 30 areas and an additional 14 areas. These numbers all seem a bit confused to me. Will she say the exact number of Prevent priority areas the Government are concerned about?

Karen Bradley: If the hon. Lady will give me a few moments, I will come on to that point.
	We do not believe that it is crucial for the guidance to be subject to additional parliamentary approval because we are conducting a wide-ranging consultation and, although the specified authorities must have regard to the guidance, they are not required to follow it in all cases. That is not an uncommon approach for statutory guidance of this nature and we set that out in detail in the delegated powers memorandum published with the Bill. However, I recognise the need for these issues to be properly considered, and that is why my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration made clear in Committee our intention to await the conclusions of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform before giving further consideration to whether we should make any changes of this sort. I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that that is a sensible approach and will be content to await the report of that Committee. On that basis, I invite her to withdraw the amendment, so that we can return to the issue in the other place.
	Let me now turn to amendment 6, which would amend clause 29 to require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to support panels in carrying out their functions. The amendment would also require that the panel had sight of the list of approved providers for deradicalisation programmes and that the providers were subject to monitoring. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration and Security explained in Committee, Channel is a multi-agency programme that provides support to people identified as vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. It has been in operation in all areas of England and Wales since 2012. In Scotland, the relevant programme is known as Prevent Professional Concerns. It is the Government’s hope and intention that these provisions should also apply to Scotland and discussions with the Scottish Government are ongoing.
	As the hon. Lady asked about the devolved Administrations, I want to confirm that we are speaking to the Scottish and Welsh Governments about how the duty should be implemented in those Administrations and consulting on how we should make the guidance appropriate to bodies in Scotland and Wales, particularly because the different legal system in Scotland might mean that we need to implement things differently there. As part of the process, we are consulting them on how the duty should be monitored and enforced.

Diana Johnson: It is very helpful to hear the Minister set that out, but once agreement has been reached with the devolved Administrations, will there be a further period of consultation on the guidance, so that local authorities and other bodies can comment on what has been agreed between the Governments?

Karen Bradley: I am not sure that that is how we envisage it happening, but we are consulting and working very closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that we take into account their views and get this right for them.
	The hon. Lady asked about the number of priority areas under Prevent, so let me clarify. There are currently 30 Prevent priority areas, and we anticipate that that
	will rise to up to 50 in the next financial year. The impact assessment allows for up to 90 priority areas, should the need arise.
	The hon. Lady asked about referrals to Channel relating to the far right and whether the Channel programme targeted only Muslim radicalisation. Like Prevent as a whole, Channel covers all forms of terrorism and extremism related to terrorism. It does not target Muslims and anyone can refer a person of any age, ethnicity or faith background to Channel. A significant number of people who have started receiving support through Channel were referred for far-right concerns. ACPO has reported that around a quarter of Channel referrals relate to the far right.
	The hon. Lady has expressed concern about the expertise that panels must have and has retabled the amendment that we considered in Committee. Clause 28 includes provision for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to support panels in carrying out their functions. I can assure the hon. Lady that existing guidance is being updated in consultation with relevant persons, including those who deliver on the ground such as panel chairs. My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, will issue this guidance before the provisions are commenced.
	Local panels assess the individual’s risk and, if appropriate, develop a support package. It is the job of the panel members to provide advice in respect of their areas of expertise, and to arrange, where agreed, support interventions from their services. Interventions that are delivered by such statutory partners are subject to existing monitoring arrangements.
	In respect of theological or ideological support, the police representative will recommend to the panel the provider most suited to the case. The list of approved providers for such support is already made available to key members of the panel.
	Safeguards and measures are in place to monitor the support providers—I hope that that reassures the hon. Lady—and they are all bound by a service level agreement with the Home Office that sets out the terms and conditions of their appointment, including conduct. In addition, the police, as part of their co-ordination role, regularly review progress made against any interventions commissioned. Any misconduct or quality concerns will be treated seriously by the Home Office, with the option of terminating an agreement with a provider.
	On this basis, I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured that amendment 6 is unnecessary. I invite her to withdraw amendment 7, so that we can return to the parliamentary scrutiny of the Prevent guidance in the other place.

Diana Johnson: I am grateful to the Minister for going through my questions in such detail. On amendment 7, I am surprised that the Government are not willing to agree that both Houses should have the opportunity to scrutinise the final version of the guidance, which we have not yet seen. I note what she said about keeping the matter under consideration. I am sure that the matter will be returned to when the Bill goes to the other place. On that basis, I will not seek to divide the House on amendment 7. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Schedule 3
	 — 
	Specified authorities

Karen Bradley: I beg to move amendment 13, page47,line10, at end insert—
	“A person carrying out a function of an authority mentioned in section 1(2) of the Local Government Act 1999 by virtue of a direction made under section 15 of that Act.”
	This amendment would add the authority specified to those subject to the duty contained in clause 21 and would make the relevant entry consistent with the corresponding entry in Schedule 4.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 14 to 17.

Karen Bradley: In respect of the duty to have due regard to preventing people from being drawn into terrorism in clause 21, the Government have tabled a number of corrective amendments to the list in schedule 3, which specifies the authorities subject to the duty. The amendments will ensure that the intended specified authorities are subject to the duty.
	Amendment 13 would add:
	“A person carrying out a function of an authority mentioned in section 1(2) of the Local Government Act 1999 by virtue of a direction made under section 15 of that Act.”
	This appears in schedule 4, as regards Channel, and should also appear in schedule 3. The effect will be to ensure that where local authority functions are transferred, for example to commissioners if an authority is failing, the duty will apply to them too.
	Amendment 14 will add the principal of a secure college to the criminal justice section of schedule 3. That will ensure consistency with schedule 4. Amendment 15 will remove an unnecessary entry. An institution
	“within the higher education sector within the meaning of section 91(5) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992”
	will also be a qualifying institution within the meaning of section 11 of the Higher Education Act 2004, which has its own entry.
	Amendment 16 ensures that the privately funded higher education providers are listed in schedule 3 as intended. They are covered in schedule 4, as regards Channel, but are at present missing from schedule 3. The draft guidance published for consultation has been drafted as though they are included in schedule 3. Amendment 17 corrects an inadvertent error by removing reference in schedule 3 to police authorities.

Diana Johnson: Very briefly, I was surprised that there was reference to police authorities when they were abolished by the Government some time ago. I guess that that is what comes when Bills are hastily drafted. I have one question for the Minister, which relates back to the issue of Scottish bodies that will be covered by the Bill. Currently, they are not listed anywhere. When will we have a list of the Scottish bodies that are covered?

Karen Bradley: I thank the shadow Minister for her question. If she will forgive me, I will have to get back to her on that point at a later date.
	Amendment 13 agreed to.
	Amendments made: 14,on page47,line16, at end insert—
	“The principal of a secure college.”.
	This amendment would add the authority specified to those subject to the duty contained in clause 21.
	Amendment 15,on page47, leave out lines 20 to 22.
	This amendment would remove an unnecessary entry. An institution within the higher education sector within the meaning of section 91(5) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 would also be a qualifying institution within the meaning of section 11 of the Higher Education Act 2004 (which has its own entry).
	Amendment 16, on page48,line25, at end insert—
	(b) courses of a description mentioned in Schedule 6 to the Education Reform Act 1988 (higher education courses).”.
	This amendment would make the relevant entry consistent with the corresponding entry in Schedule 4.
	Amendment 17, on page49, leave out lines 5 and 6.—(Karen Bradley.)
	This amendment removes references to police authorities which no longer exist.

Clause 36
	 — 
	Privacy and Civil Liberties Board

Diana Johnson: I beg to move amendment 3,on page22,line14, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	‘(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations made by statutory instrument establish a body to—
	(a) provide advice and assistance to the persons appointed under—
	(i) section 36(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006;
	(ii) section 31(1) of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing &c. Act 2010; and
	(iii) section 20(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011.
	in the discharge of their statutory functions.
	(b) review the operation, effectiveness and implications of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, [this Act] and any other law or prerogative power to the extent that it relates to counter-terrorism;
	(c) consider whether such legislation contains appropriate safeguards, is proportionate and remains necessary;
	(d) review intelligence-sharing guidance and practice to the extent that it relates to counter-terrorism and the functions of the Board;
	(e) make recommendations to any public authority about the exercise of its statutory functions relating to the prevention of terrorism;
	(f) undertake inquiries relating to counter-terrorism when invited to do so by the Home Secretary, the Treasury or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, or on the initiative of the Board;
	(g) encourage good practice in the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of terrorism;
	(h) provide advice and assistance to Government on the development and implementation of policy relating to the prevention of terrorism.”.
	This expands the remit of the body to match that which is described in the Government’s Terms of Reference for this body.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 2,on page22,line22, leave out
	“Privacy and Civil Liberties Board”
	and insert “Counter Terrorism Oversight Panel”.
	This would rename the body created by clause 36.
	Amendment 4,on page22,line25, at end insert
	“in accordance with the Code of Public Appointments”.
	Amendment 5,on page22,line32, at end insert—
	“(i) the information-gathering powers of the board;
	(j) reporting requirements, and the formulation of and consultation on an annual work plan; and
	(k) the access to such relevant classified material as may be required in order for the board to undertake its functions under subsection (1);”.
	This increases the points that have to be included in regulations brought forward by the Secretary of State to include information gathering powers, formulation of an annual work plan and relevant to classified material.

Diana Johnson: These amendments relate to part 7, which confers powers on the Secretary of State to establish a body to be known as the privacy and civil liberties board. While most of the Bill introduces new powers, part 7 introduces checks on those powers. It is worth mentioning at this stage that no level of general oversight will ever negate the need for proper judicial oversight of the specific use of these powers, which until yesterday the Government unfortunately were fiercely resisting.
	Labour has always said that strong powers need strong checks, which is why we support the principle of a new oversight body. It is also why we tabled amendments to the Justice and Security Bill when it went through Parliament to increase the powers of the Intelligence and Security Committee and why we have consistently called for a bigger role to be given to the intelligence and surveillance commissioners.
	Although the creation of a new body is good in principle, what is actually set out in the Bill does not match the name “privacy and civil liberties board” or what the Government set out in their terms of reference, and it does not introduce what we think is needed. That is why we have tabled amendments 2 to 5. The problem is that the Bill determines nothing other than the name of the body. The name evokes the idea of a body with a wide remit to work on privacy and civil liberties issues in the UK, a body to safeguard human rights, a body similar to the Joint Committee on Human Rights created by the Labour Government, but that is not actually what is provided for in the Bill.
	The terms of reference published by the Government suggest a body that will support the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation in providing oversight of counter-terrorism legislation in the UK and investigating its operations. Broadly, we think that what is contained in the terms of reference is very sensible and that it would provide both capacity and openness to the oversight of counter-terrorism policy. It would also address some of the issues relating to the capacity of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation that the current incumbent, David Anderson QC, identified earlier this year—I went through some of that in detail in Committee.
	However, what we see in the terms of reference does not match what we see in the Bill. The third version of the board is the one provided for by clause 36, a body that the Home Secretary may create in future if she wishes. In future she may decide on the body’s procedures,
	membership, work plan and the publishing of its reports. If the body is created, it will have very limited statutory remit and powers. We do not think that is good enough, so amendments 2 to 5 address what we see as the Bill’s shortcomings as currently drafted.
	Amendment 3 would ensure that the panel or board will have a remit that includes all the key counter-terrorism issues. Specifically, it includes the terrorism statutes, which the independent reviewer is currently precluded from investigating. Unlike the independent reviewer, we do not envisage a remit that is overly prescriptive or requires annual reviews of certain pieces of legislation. Amendment 3 would also give the board a role in undertaking specific inquiries in certain circumstances, to make recommendations to public authorities, to review intelligence-sharing guidance and to encourage good practice in the prevention and investigation of terrorism.
	Amendment 4 would ensure that appointments to the panel were made in line with the code of public appointments and not used as political patronage. We know that the role of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has been so successful because the calibre of the individuals appointed has been outstanding, but this has been possible only because candidates were appointed for their competence rather than their politics, and the same principle should apply to members of the board.
	Of course, a board can be effective only if it has a work plan that is agreed with the relevant parties, information-gathering powers and access to the relevant information which, for a board of this type, will often include classified information. All this would be provided for by amendment 5.

Bob Stewart: On classified information, all the information will be very sensitive, so presumably whoever is considered for appointment to such a board will be vetted and security cleared to receive such information. Is that assumption correct?

Diana Johnson: No doubt the Minister will be able to confirm that. My understanding is that the level of information and intelligence given to the board will mean that its members will have to undergo appropriate vetting to make sure that they are suitable. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
	The amendments would give the board a proper remit, with members appointed on merit, procedures for agreeing a work plan and access to the relevant information. Finally, amendment 2 would give the board a name that matches the role that we envisage for it—the counter terrorism oversight panel.

David Heath: The hon. Lady is making good points about the role of the panel, but does she not think that the name she suggests increases confusion? She and I want judicial oversight of the operation of the Bill and other counter-terrorism Acts. To call the board an “oversight panel” invites confusion because that is not precisely its role.

Diana Johnson: We have argued throughout our discussions that we want proper judicial safeguards
	where appropriate, especially in relation to the provisions of the early parts of the Bill. I am not sure I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the proposed name of the panel causing confusion. The current name, the privacy and civil liberties board, does not describe its role. The name is problematic. We have suggested an alternative. If it can be improved, I am happy to consider that, but we think the name proposed in the amendment best serves us at present.

David Heath: I am not particularly enamoured of the Government’s suggested name, either, as it does not describe the role properly. But I believe the word “oversight” invites confusion.

Diana Johnson: Perhaps the matter can be discussed further in another place. “Counter terrorism oversight panel”, the name that we have suggested, best describes the role that we envisage for the body.
	As I have stressed, these amendments do not seek to do anything radical. They aim to ensure that the legislation matches what the Government have previously committed to do, and they ensure that what is in the Bill goes some way to addressing the concerns raised by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. The amendments are not overly prescriptive; they leave plenty room for the detail to be spelled out in secondary legislation, but they would ensure that that secondary legislation was meaningful as it relates to the provisions of the Bill. I hope the Minister will seriously consider accepting the amendments.

Karen Bradley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for tabling the amendments.
	Our debate has built on the one held in Committee where there was broad support for the principle of creating the privacy and civil liberties oversight board. The Bill introduces a comprehensive package of measures to disrupt people’s ability to travel abroad to fight, reduce the risks they pose on their return, and combat the underlying ideology that feeds, supports and sanctions terrorism. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear, these powers are essential to keep up with the very serious and rapidly changing threats we face. Of course, as that threat evolves, we need to consider and update our legislation accordingly. However, it is also right that at this time, in the light of the increased threat level, and as the legislative landscape changes, we consider the oversight arrangements that we have in place for UK counter-terrorism laws to ensure that we are getting the balance right between responding to these threats and the protection of privacy and civil liberties.
	The United Kingdom already has a very effective and transparent system of independent oversight and scrutiny. Few, if any, other countries in the world manage as well as the UK the balance between the need for powers that must necessarily be exercised in secret and the need to provide reassurance to the public about what is being done in their name. However, we should not rest on our laurels. During the passage of the Bill that became the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which received Royal Assent in July, the Government committed to establishing a board that would provide additional assurance to the public.
	Clause 36 provides the Secretary of State with a power to create a privacy and civil liberties board,
	which will support the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, currently David Anderson. The increased demand for a review of particular aspects of counter-terrorism legislation means that this is a substantial task for one individual to undertake. David Anderson himself has been clear that there is a need for reform of the independent reviewer role. The board will be chaired by the independent reviewer. It will assist, advise and undertake particular duties in support of the independent reviewer’s statutory functions, and expand the capacity and breadth of experience available in our oversight arrangements.

Diana Johnson: What is the reason for the name of the board, because it does not seem to fit with the role that the Minister has described? “Privacy and civil liberties board” goes much wider than that.

Karen Bradley: I assure the hon. Lady that I will come to that point.
	Clause 36 provides for the making of regulations that would set out the detail of the board, including provisions about composition, functions and appointment. These regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. We can debate, as we are, the precise details of the board’s composition and functions, but, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration noted when the Bill was in Committee, no one took issue with the principle that establishing such a board would build on the already strong oversight arrangements that exist in this country. I am pleased to say that since that debate took place, the Government have published a consultation paper on the composition, functions and remit of the board. It can be found on the gov.uk website, and copies have been placed in the libraries of both Houses.
	I encourage all right hon. and hon. Members, as well as those from outside Parliament with an interest in these matters, to participate in the consultation exercise. We hope that it will elicit a large number of replies covering a wide range of views. The results of the consultation exercise will certainly influence the terms of the regulations. Those regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and will cover all the key questions about the board’s composition, remit, powers and functions. Those responding to the consultation will be free to express an opinion on all relevant questions relating to the board. That is why I do not believe that amendment 5 is necessary.
	Amendment 3 deals with the board’s functions. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration explained in Committee, the board will fully support the independent reviewer. In doing so, it will provide much needed capacity to allow the reviewer to consider a wider range of areas than it is perhaps currently possible for one individual to undertake. It is therefore right that we ensure that the board’s statutory functions and objectives are in line with those of the role it is designed to support. Should the statutory role of the independent reviewer change in future, we would need to ensure that the board’s role fully reflected that change.
	On amendment 4, one of the issues that the consultation covers is the appointment of board members, including those to whom that task should fall and whether there are any prior qualifications that board members should have. It might emerge, for example, that there is strong support for the notion that each board member should
	represent a particular interest group or category and that that interest group should have a say in the appointment. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) asked whether members will be vetted. It will clearly be important that any individuals appointed to the board are provided with an appropriate level of security clearance. The independent reviewer is cleared to see classified information, and if necessary the same will apply to the board members.

Diana Johnson: Has the Minister given any thought to whether it would be appropriate for Members of Parliament or Members of the House of Lords to serve on this body?

Karen Bradley: I will return to that point in a moment.
	I am sure that we will want to ensure that all appointments are made in accordance with best practice, but it seems to me that it would be premature unduly to prescribe the process until we have decided exactly how appointments are made. I think that that applies in this case.
	Amendment 2 would change the board’s name. We have been clear that the primary objective of the board is to offer further assurance to the public that careful, independent scrutiny is being given to the UK’s counter-terrorism powers to ensure that, in the face of the threat to the UK, we are getting the balance right and that our legislation and policies have due regard for civil liberty and privacy concerns. The board’s name properly reflects that purpose, and I see no reason to change it.
	I am pleased to say that there is no great disagreement within the House on what we are seeking to do. Given the threats that the UK faces, it is a sad necessity that we need a suite of counter-terrorism powers. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in Committee:
	“I have always taken the view that without our security we cannot enjoy our civil liberties”.—[Official Report, 15 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 1229.]
	To return to the point about Members of Parliament, we have no firm views on that question. We are currently consulting on the board’s composition, and we will take all views expressed into consideration.

Alan Beith: rose—

Simon Burns: rose—

Karen Bradley: I will give way to my right hon. Friend.

Simon Burns: Presumably the members of the board will be paid, so would that position be considered an office of profit under the Crown? Members of Parliament are disbarred from such offices if they are to remain Members.

Karen Bradley: My right hon. Friend has clearly given considerable thought to that matter. We will of course consider all points of view when we look at the responses to the consultation, and the point will be considered at that stage. Does the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) wish to intervene? [Interruption.] He was going to make the same point.
	Given the exceptional nature of counter-terrorism powers, it is right that they should be subject to proper oversight and scrutiny. This country has been very well
	served by the very distinguished individuals who have been independent reviewers, not least the present incumbent, but it is right for us to keep our oversight arrangements under review and be prepared to change them when required. It is worthwhile creating a new board to support the work of the independent reviewer, providing greater capacity in this area and giving the public greater assurance that in framing our legislation we are striking the right balance between privacy and civil liberties.
	As I have said, the Government have published a full public consultation inviting comments on the proposals. We will seek to act on the points made in response to the consultation, which covers the composition and functions of the board. I believe that will address most of the issues covered by the amendments. Accordingly, I invite the hon. Lady to withdraw amendment 3.

Diana Johnson: There is a question about the board’s name, and I hope that that will be considered in the other place. I am interested to hear about the consultation on its membership. On the basis of what the Minister has said about this group of amendments, I will not press them, but we will want to return to them in the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 3.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 38
	 — 
	Power to make consequential provision

Karen Bradley: I beg to move amendment 12, page 23, line 24, at end insert—
	“( ) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must—
	(a) if the regulations contain provision that would fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if included in an Act of that Parliament, consult the Scottish Ministers;
	(b) if the regulations contain provision that would fall within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales if included in an Act of that Assembly, consult the Welsh Ministers;
	(c) if the regulations contain provision that would fall within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if included in an Act of that Assembly, consult the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.”
	This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the relevant devolved administration before making consequential provision by regulations under clause 38 if any of that provision would fall within devolved competence.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 1,page23,line31, at end insert—
	“(4A) The Secretary of State must consult with Welsh Ministers before making provisions under subsection (1) so far as relating to any Measure or Act of the National Assembly of Wales.
	(4B) The Secretary of State must consult with Scottish Ministers before making provisions under subsection (1) so far as relating any Act or instrument of the Scottish Parliament.
	(4C) The Secretary of State must consult with the Northern Ireland Executive before making provisions under subsection (1) so far as relating to any Act or instrument of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
	This would ensure that the Secretary of State could not amend legislation from the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly or Northern Ireland Assembly without first consulting with the 
	Scottish or Welsh Governments or the Northern Ireland Executive.

Karen Bradley: Amendment 12 involves an important point of principle. It concerns the power to make a consequential amendment to existing legislation, including legislation made by the devolved legislatures. Such consequential amendments would themselves be reserved, as the Bill clearly legislates on the reserved matter of counter-terrorism. It is possible that a consequential amendment made under this provision might alter a piece of legislation enacted by a devolved legislature. In cases where that is done for a reserved purpose, proceeding without consultation is clearly permissible under, and properly respectful of, the devolution settlement, although in practice the Government would of course raise the issue as a courtesy with the relevant devolved Administration.
	The issue would be different were any consequential amendments made under the Bill to fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Amendment 12 would require the Secretary of State to consult the relevant devolved Administration before making consequential provision by regulations under clause 38 if any part of that provision fell within the competence of the legislature in question.
	I should reiterate that we do not expect there to be any requirement to make such consequential provisions, and in practice, the Government would always consult the devolved Administrations should such a circumstance arise. I trust that amendment 12 will provide reassurance to right hon. and hon. Members, and to the devolved Administrations themselves, that the proper consultation will take place if required. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) not to press amendment 1, and I ask the House to agree to amendment 12.

Diana Johnson: It is very nice that the Government have tabled amendment 12, as it is effectively the same amendment that the Opposition tabled in Committee to ensure that there is proper consultation with the devolved Administrations if the Home Secretary introduces changes. We are pleased that the Government have seen the sense of what Labour suggested, and that we can claim a victory on ensuring that there is full consultation. I am happy not to press amendment 1, because Government amendment 12 is exactly what we were trying to achieve.

Pete Wishart: As we discuss counter-terrorism for a fifth day, our thoughts are very much on the appalling murders in Paris today. It was not only an appalling attack on journalists and a newspaper office but an attack on free speech, and today all of us can say, “Je suis Charlie”. Given those sickening events, it is pretty hard to discuss counter-terror measures today, but we live in a democracy and we will discuss them. We will not let any terrorist attack deter us from our influence on the matter or how we approach our business.
	We are eternally grateful for amendment 12, because it is the beginning of a recognition of Scotland’s distinct responsibilities for measures under the Bill. The Bill asks that we be consulted on competencies for which we are actually responsible. It is not consultation that the
	Minister requires, it is our consent. We are responsible for delivering those competencies in the Scottish Parliament. We are responsible for education and health, we have a distinct legal system, and we are responsible for the judiciary. The Scottish police force, Police Scotland, is accountable to the Scottish Parliament. We have our own institutions and our own set of responsibilities and competencies. Yes, we are grateful that the UK Government are going to pick up the phone and consult our Ministers, but it is our consent that they require when passing measures under the Bill.
	We will agree with the Government on most measures, and I am sure we will get on perfectly well, but we take a different and distinct approach on a number of issues. Of course we do—we have a different culture in Scotland. We do not have the same size of ethnic communities as there are south of the border, and we have a different and distinct approach to community relations. We see and deliver some things very differently from the UK Government.
	The vast platform of the Prevent strategy will be administered in Scotland by Scottish public bodies, responsible to the Scottish Parliament and under the guidance of Scottish Ministers. Consultation—great. Thank you ever so much, Home Secretary, for being prepared to consult Scottish Ministers, discuss things with them and maybe even ask their views, but what we need is to give consent. If we are to be realistic about the devolution settlement and the range of responsibilities we have, and if we are talking about the respect agenda, that consent is required. Consultation is certainly not good enough.
	Our approach to Prevent is different, of course. We see it more through the lens of safeguarding, with an emphasis on keeping people safe, community cohesion, participative democracy and ensuring that action is consistent with the needs of, and risks to, all our communities.

Bob Stewart: I cannot see any difference between that and what is proposed in the Bill. Those are exactly the same measures that everyone in this country wants to see instituted.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but there are differences. They may just be nuances to him, but we take them particularly seriously in Scotland. For example, we work with key sectors in Scotland, such as the NHS, further education, the Prison Service and local authorities. Prevent also benefits from input from Police Scotland’s model of community engagement and from the strength of the relationship between various arms of the community and all the public services in Scotland. The key point is that we perhaps look at the cultural context differently.
	What we are keen to do in Scotland—and we have had a great deal of success—is ensure that a sense of Scottish citizenship is given as quickly as possible to new immigrants, particularly from south Asian communities. That has been incredibly successful. We talk about the “bhangra and bagpipe” culture in some of our larger communities, especially in Glasgow, and we are particularly proud of that. Believe it or not, most Scottish Asians supported Scottish independence because they saw from their historical experience, and from being a colonial power or being part of the empire, that
	independence was not a scary issue. They were able to join us to ensure that such transformative change—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman quite a bit of leeway, but now we have got on to independence. This debate is about consultation, but I think it has stretched a little further than that. As we know, Third Reading is coming up, but at the moment we are dealing just with the amendment.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. We need consent, rather than consultation, because things are so different in Scotland, and we have responsibility for those bodies. Such issues must surely be up to the Scottish Parliament, and not just through consultation. Consultation is great and there is nothing wrong with it, but this is about ensuring that we have consent. We will not oppose the measure today—it is great that we will get that consultation. We enjoy debating with the Home Secretary. She is always welcome in Scotland, and we enjoy making sure that her views are known. Consent is fine, but we need to ensure that such matters are the responsibility of the Scottish Government and that we make those decisions. Not consultation, consent.

Karen Bradley: I will not detain the House for long, but I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for her comments and for agreeing not to press her amendment. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was not in the Chamber earlier when we had a relatively lengthy discussion about the devolved Administrations, and the consultation and work to ensure that the Prevent programme works appropriately in Scotland. I like to think that we have more in common than we have differences.
	Issues relating to policing and counter-terrorism are clearly reserved matters. Consultation, not consent, is the appropriate requirement in relation to these issues, and that is respectful at all times of the agreed devolution settlement. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman will be supporting the Government amendment, and I am glad he agrees that we must ensure that the Bill becomes an Act.
	Amendment 12 agreed to.
	Third Reading
	Queen’s consent signified.

Theresa May: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	Earlier today we heard about an appalling attack on the office of a magazine in Paris. Twelve people are reported to have been killed, and a number injured. We do not yet have full details of the attack, but I reiterate the Prime Minister’s comments in the House earlier today, and we stand with the French people at this time for freedom of speech and democracy, and against terror. Our thoughts and sympathies are with the families, friends and colleagues of the victims.
	Last month we also saw deadly and callous attacks in Sydney and in Peshawar, Pakistan, where it beggars belief that terrorist gunmen should carry out the horrific
	and targeted murder of children at a school. In 2013 we saw the first terrorist attacks on the streets of Britain since 2005, when Fusilier Lee Rigby was brutally murdered by Islamist extremists, and Mohammed Saleem was stabbed to death by a far right extremist. There can be no doubt that the terrorist threat we face is grave and relentless. It is a threat that takes many forms and causes suffering in many countries.
	I have always been clear that we need to keep our terrorism laws and capabilities under review, and ensure that the police and intelligence agencies have the powers they need to do their job. That is why the Bill is so important. As I told the House on Second Reading, Parliament must have sufficient opportunity to consider the Government’s proposals, and I believe that the House has had that opportunity. We have had full and frank debates on the measures in the Bill, and the timetable has allowed us to consider all the amendments that were tabled. The Bill, and the powers within it, have benefited from robust scrutiny by the House.
	We are agreed on the need for these powers. I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary and her colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), for their constructive approach throughout. I pay tribute to the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debates in Committee and on Report, and, in particular, to a number of members of the Intelligence and Security Committee: the right hon. Members for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). Each has brought considerable knowledge and expertise to the proceedings, but all contributions have ensured that our debates have been enlightening and valuable. I thank the members of the Panel of Chairs who presided over the Committee of the whole House, and the officials, Officers and staff of the House, and those in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, who have enabled the House’s expedited consideration of the Bill.
	In the past two days, we have again had a full and detailed discussion of the Bill on Report, with many excellent contributions from all parts of the House. The Bill will strengthen our existing powers, so that we can disrupt the ability of people to travel abroad to fight, and to control their ability to return here. It will enhance our ability to monitor and control the actions of those in the UK who pose a threat, and it will help us to confront the underlying ideology that feeds, supports and sanctions terrorism.
	During the Bill’s passage through the House, we have considered the powers in part 1 of the Bill relating to temporary restrictions on the travel of those seeking to engage in terrorism-related activity overseas, and on those suspected of involvement in terrorist activity abroad who wish to return to the UK. We have considered the safeguards that should circumscribe the use of the powers.

William Cash: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the amendment I moved yesterday regarding the question of jihadists of British origin who
	decide that they wish to return to the United Kingdom, even though they have repudiated allegiance to it and sworn allegiance to another state or entity. Will my right hon. Friend at least be good enough to say that she would be prepared to consider the amendment when the Bill goes to the House of Lords?

Theresa May: I recognise that there will be those who wish to return to the United Kingdom. The measures we are taking on the temporary exclusion orders are about ensuring that those who wish to return and have been involved in terrorism-related activity may return on our terms. They will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
	On other matters, in particular safeguards, as the Minister for Security and Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) made clear to the House yesterday, in the light of the views of David Anderson QC, as well as of many right hon. and hon. Members, the Government have committed to look very carefully at judicial oversight of the temporary exclusion order power. We will return to this issue in the House of Lords.
	The House has also debated the duty on a range of authorities, as at part 5, to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. If we are to counter poisonous extremist ideology and prevent vulnerable people from becoming radicalised in the first place, we must ensure that we have the necessary provisions. I appreciate the considerable interest that has been shown in how the duty will work in practice, and trust that the draft guidance, on which we are currently consulting, has helped to address the concerns raised by a number of right hon. and hon. Members.
	We discussed the nature of the privacy and civil liberties board, which will support the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. I reiterate the point made by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who has responsibility for modern slavery and serious and organised crime, that we are consulting on this proposal at present and it is right that this consultation should conclude before the final detail of the board is agreed.
	The House is aware that the need for this legislation is significant and pressing. Our security and intelligence agencies tell us that the threat we face from terrorism is now more dangerous than at any time before or since 9/11. The appalling conflicts in Syria and Iraq continue, with ISIL solidifying its hold on much of the region. More than 550 people from the UK who are of interest to the security services are thought to have travelled to the region since the start of the conflict, and we estimate that about half of those have returned. Some have become disillusioned and simply wish to reintegrate into British society, but others pose a significant threat and in recent months the police have arrested and prosecuted a number of these people. The Bill will help us to counter that threat.
	The powers in the Bill should be used only when it is necessary and proportionate, and their use will be subject to the appropriate level of safeguards and oversight. The Bill represents a considered and targeted approach that strikes the right balance between civil liberties and security, but we must not delay. The threat from terrorism is ever present and evolving. We are in the midst of a generational struggle, and we must ensure that the
	police and the intelligence agencies have the powers they need to keep us safe. The Bill will help them to do that, and I commend it to the House.

Yvette Cooper: I join the Home Secretary in supporting the Third Reading of the Bill and in condemning the disgusting attack in Paris today. The details will continue to emerge over the next hours and days, but we know that 12 people have been killed and others injured, and I am sure the whole House will agree with the words of the French President, Francois Hollande, who said it was
	“an exceptional act of barbarism committed against a newspaper”.
	He said that France would be firm and strong in facing down these threats and punishing the attackers.
	The whole House, the Government and every party stand in solidarity with the people of Paris and France, and our thoughts and prayers are with those who have lost their lives, their families, their friends, their colleagues and those across the city and the country who will feel this terrible loss. We have experienced terrorist attacks here, and we have stood firm with other countries that have endured such attacks—the Home Secretary rightly referred to the heartbreaking attacks in Pakistan, as well as those in Australia and Canada—and we will stand with other countries again against the hatred of the killers. We will stand up for our democratic values and never let terrorists win.
	We have seen, too, the strength of the response from the French people: the “Je suis Charlie” response; the determination not to be cowed or afraid; the determination to stand together. We will stand with them. Those who died or were injured include journalists, writers, cartoonists and police officers, and the editor-in-chief of Charlie Hebdo has said:
	“I don't understand how people can attack a newspaper with heavy weapons. A newspaper is not a weapon of war.”
	As we know, the free press we defend here in Britain, and which is defended across Europe, is vital to the freedom of speech that democracy depends on.
	Our thoughts and tributes should also be with the police and security services in France and here in Britain who run towards danger when terrorist attacks take place and who put their own lives at risk as they do so. As we discuss the Bill, we should also pay tribute to our security services and police, who will be working even now with the French authorities to provide any international intelligence that could help France catch these vile killers and bring them to justice. While we know not yet the details of those responsible, we know that the killers do not represent Islam or reflect the faith of millions of French and British Muslims. Muslim leaders in Paris and Muslim community groups and organisations in Britain have been among the first to condemn this appalling attack.
	We debate the Bill in the knowledge of the threats that can affect any country and at a time when the terror threat has grown. We have said for some time that more action is needed against terrorism to ensure that the police, security agencies and other organisations have up-to-date powers to act and that we have up-to-date safeguards to protect the liberty and security that terrorists and extremists seek to undermine. That is why we have supported the Bill and called for stronger action to
	deal with terrorism, alongside stronger safeguards so that we defend those democratic values too. That requires both strong and proportionate powers to act, and oversight—the checks and balances—to defend the very freedom of speech that terrorists have attacked today, as well as the liberty and democracy that extremists want to undermine.
	The Home Secretary has talked about the additional challenge from the Syrian conflict. More than 500 people are suspected of having travelled to Syria, and half of them have returned to the UK, which changes the challenges we face here in Britain. Over the past few days and weeks, many of the measures in the Bill have been subject to detailed debate in the context of the Syrian conflict. As the House reaches the conclusion of its consideration, I thank again my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn and my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) for their efforts, as well as all those who have been involved in scrutinising the Bill. More needs to be done to prevent young people from being radicalised or drawn into extremism in the first place. We hope that putting Prevent on a statutory footing will help to strengthen it. We will continue to probe in the other place how that will work in practice, including through a role for Parliament in debating future strategy.
	On TPIMs, the Home Secretary knows that we have called for some time for the Government to bring back the relocation powers that were abolished a few years ago. We are glad that she has finally done so. It is clear that the police and the agencies had concluded that TPIMs were no longer useful in their previous form. I hope that this Bill will change that and make them useful again in the extreme cases where prosecution has proved too difficult but the threat remains.
	The police also need to be able to take swift action to stop someone believed to be trying to leave the country to join ISIS. If troubled parents ring the police because they are worried that a son or daughter has gone, they do not have time to invoke the royal prerogative to remove someone’s passport. However, we still believe that more checks and balances are needed to ensure that these important powers cannot be abused. We hope that that will be debated further in the other place. We agree, too, that action is needed to enable the police and security agencies to manage the return of those who may have been drawn into the conflict and ensure that they do not pose a risk to the British public if they return. Where possible, people should be arrested and prosecuted for crimes committed. TPIMs may be required in extreme cases where no prosecution is possible, and everyone returning should be expected to engage with the Channel de-radicalisation programme.
	The Home Secretary has changed the policy very substantially from the original pledge by the Prime Minister to exclude people from Britain—we believe she has been put in a difficult position by those announcements. However, we remain concerned that the policy has been designed to fit an announcement, rather than to fit the needs of security, and that it is still unclear how it will work. We believe it will benefit from serious further scrutiny in the other place to ensure that it does not become too complex and bureaucratic, and instead can achieve the aims that she has set for it. We also argued from the start that more judicial oversight
	and safeguards were needed. I welcome the acceptance by the Home Secretary after the debate on our amendments yesterday that judicial oversight is needed for temporary exclusion orders. We look forward to seeing the Government’s proposals, as well as the debates on them in the other place, to ensure that the appropriate method of judicial oversight is used and that it is tried and tested.
	Finally, we have supported, though sought to clarify, the important power to retain IP addresses—which had the support of the Joint Committee that considered the previous draft Communications Data Bill—and in particular the contribution that that can make to tackling online child abuse, as well as international terrorism.
	Today’s vile attack just across the water brings home to us the threats that we have to address, the need for vigilance and the need for us in Parliament to ensure that we defend and protect our democratic values. That means that we need to scrutinise any counter-terrorism legislation in great detail. We need to take seriously our responsibilities in this House to protect both the liberty and the security of which Britain has always been proud from extremists of any kind. On that basis, we support this Bill and its Third Reading and look forward to the further debates that will take place in the other place.

David Heath: Like the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary, I think it is quite impossible to contribute to this debate without starting with the grim events in Paris and the attack on Charlie Hebdo. It is beyond any acceptable behaviour—of course we know that—but as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said earlier, it goes beyond terrorism, in that it would appear to be an attack precisely on free speech. I hope and trust that at the end of the day it will be proved that the pen is mightier than the sword—that people’s ideas cannot be defeated with bombs and guns—because that is what the counter-terrorism fight is all about. As the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and the hon. Gentleman said, I hope that every Member of this House will be able to repeat: “Today, je suis Charlie aussi.”
	It is normal on these occasions to welcome a Bill, but I do not think that I can welcome a Bill that deals with such a continuing problem. I can say only that it is a grim necessity. We should not welcome the fact of ever reducing our traditional rights and liberties other than to protect the rights and liberties of others. That is what we are, sadly, about today.
	One occasionally meets people who will say that the threat is imaginary and is something somehow dreamt up by politicians in order to build their empires. I do not believe that that is the case for one moment. As someone who was on Capitol Hill on 9/11 and at Aldgate station on 7/7, I do not need to be told that there is a real threat from terrorism in this and other countries—so frequently that is the case.
	The test is not whether there is a necessity to deal effectively with terrorism, but whether the instruments that this House puts in the hands of the Executive are proportionate, effective and actually increase our capacity
	to fight terrorism rather than make the situation worse. I am, I am afraid, a veteran of far too many debates on counter-terrorism legislation over the years; other right hon. and hon. Members around the Chamber today are in the same position. I have supported some such Bills; some I have opposed; of some I have been deeply critical. I have always opposed the Home Office—I am talking about the Home Office rather than the Home Secretary—when it appears to have been more involved in legislative incontinence than getting to grips with what works and what is effective.
	However, where the necessity is there, where the checks and balances are sufficient and where we ensure that every single action taken by the Executive can be reviewed and checked to see whether it is reasonable and appropriate and based on good evidence, this House has a responsibility to act on behalf of people in this country. When this Bill eventually returns from the other place, the issue of judicial oversight over the earlier parts of the Bill will be a key point for me. I hear the arguments about judicial review—that it is a retrospective and partial review—but I do not believe that that is sufficient to the task of ensuring that any Executive do not act on occasions in an excessive or peremptory way. That is why the courts have to be involved. I had this argument many times with the then Government during the last Parliament. Sometimes they accepted the arguments; sometimes, sadly, they did not.

David Winnick: Fortunately, our democracy continues—despite the horror in Paris and what has happened here. I hope my intervention will not be misunderstood, as it is part of democracy. Why did the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues not support judicial oversight yesterday? Why wait for the provisions to go to another unelected place?

David Heath: I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say and I am confident that the Home Secretary has clearly got the message that the Government need to table amendments in the other place, which will return to us and will then, I hope, be approved by this House. I believe that to be a perfectly appropriate mechanism. I would have preferred to have had Government amendments yesterday, but there were not any on this issue. I was saddened that we had not yet reached the point at which the Government accepted the arguments, but I believe that they now do accept them. If they do not, I suspect there will be a majority in the other place that will impose a judicial oversight amendment in any case. We would then have to debate not a Government proposal, but one concocted by colleagues in the other place. Provided that such a proposal is not grossly inappropriate, I will support it when it returns to us. I am sure I am not alone in that, and I know that the Home Secretary is looking at this very carefully. I am genuinely grateful to her and her colleagues for the fact that they have engaged with that argument.
	There are still issues to be resolved. We had what was almost a semantic debate, but one that I think was important in the context of the Bill, about the difference between temporary exclusion and managed return. I feel that we are on a journey in that respect. Some people would say that the language amounts to the same thing, but I think that “managed return” better expresses where we need to be.
	I have a concern that was not expressed on Report. The Bill requires the Home Secretary to issue a permit to return “within a reasonable period”. I hope that that “reasonable period” will be constrained enough to prevent people from being in limbo for a long time. They will need to know what they must do to ensure that their return is managed appropriately, and that must be arranged promptly and timeously if it is to be effective.
	In a sense, however, those issues are peripheral to the main thrust of the Bill. As I have said, I cannot welcome a Bill many parts of which I would not wish to see in place, but I do not live in a perfect world. I live in a world in which the events that happened in Paris today happen not only here, but throughout the globe. We have to recognise that, and we have to deal with it. I hope that we shall reach a point at which we will no longer have to legislate in this way because people will no longer behave in the way that has become so common in recent years, but, sadly, we have not reached that point yet.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), who is standing down at the next election. We shall miss his wise words and the eloquent way in which he put the case for engagement and against terrorism. I join him, and both the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary, in condemning the events in Paris. We know that the community in Paris and in France as a whole—along with the community here—utterly condemn what has happened. We hope that people of good will in that country and in the rest of Europe will come forward and ensure that we recognise the great strengths of diversity and the importance of understanding different cultures and religions, while isolating those who wish to undermine the values of our society.
	I commend those on both Front Benches for the way in which they have dealt with this difficult piece of legislation and for the progress that has been made. I, for one, thought that it would not be possible for the Bill to complete all its House of Commons stages by now, but it has done so. I think that the Opposition’s constructive approach—matched, I hope, by the Government’s approach in the form of a pledge to table amendments in the other place—will enable us to be a House united in our condemnation of terrorism and a House united in the method by which that is achieved.
	As I have said before, however, I do not think that legislation is enough. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome was right to say that we do not welcome Bills of this kind. We would rather not have them, because we would rather not have terrorism. We need legislation because it enables us to provide a framework for the incredible people who work in the police and the security services and who do things that we could not possibly even imagine doing. They are on the front line, dealing with such problems, every day. But what we must do, both in government and in opposition—what every Member has a responsibility to do—is ensure that communities are fully engaged in the fight against terrorism.
	I am not saying that the communities are not engaged. They condemn those who wish to undermine our values. When we frame legislation, however, we use words such as “prevent” as though communities were able on their
	own to prevent what is happening. I think language is extremely important, and that is why I prefer the language of engagement. It should be “engagement, engagement, engagement”. We should be constantly working with communities. We cannot tell them to inform the authorities that someone is behaving in a way that causes them concern. Mothers will be fearful of reporting on their children, because when one woman did so, her son was sentenced to 12 years in prison. Following that case, women will believe that if they try to prevent their children from going abroad, those children be sent to prison for years and years with no prospect of rehabilitation.
	These are complex and difficult areas therefore, and although we want these issues reported, we need a counter-narrative to make sure that, whenever the terrorists go on to the internet and prosecute their case for violence, we have an alternative. The people who run our internet services therefore need to do much more. The Prime Minister spoke about the dark net, and I contacted Google as I was very keen to get into the dark net, to try and see exactly what was going on in there, and Google told me, “It’s called the dark net because we can’t get into it.” That is the problem. There are areas on the internet that even the most sophisticated and clever people in our security services are not able to penetrate. That is how the terrorists and those who support their cause have been able to prosecute their case.
	We need to get the internet providers to do much more. They need to take down more sites. They need to be more vigilant. They should not wait for complaints; they should act with speed and efficiency. That is clear. It has been clear to the Home Affairs Committee, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) for all the work he has done; he is particularly eloquent on these issues when we look at counter-terrorism and conduct inquiries into these matters.
	The problem has moved from the madrassahs and the schools and, I have to say to the Home Secretary, from the universities to the prisons and on to the net. So the old days when we could find the imam who was preaching the cause of terrorism have gone. There is now one-to-one radicalisation. Those who go into prison may become radicalised while there, and, unfortunately, they are not monitored sufficiently when they come out. That is what the Select Committee found in our last report. They then radicalise other people. With the best will in the world and the best resources put forward by the Government, it is very difficult to isolate people who are in prison if they are mixing with others who have different views and if they want to blame somebody else for their plight.
	That is why, rather like the Jesuits, we need to deal with this at a much earlier stage. The counter-narrative needs to start much earlier. If we fail to do that, we will, in a sense, allow a whole generation to believe some of the stories that are recurring in certain parts of the country. That is why we commended the work of Google and its work with Abdullah-X, who informed us in his broadcasts that peer group pressure leads to people deciding to give up their way of life in this country and suddenly choosing to go and fight in Syria or in another country. They give up everything—the love of their parents, the support of their families and all their
	friends—because they believe they are fighting for a better cause. We cannot sit by and wait for that to happen.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) keeps telling us, the counter-narrative must begin now. We must be as aggressive as we can be now. We cannot wait for any more people to go. Ten years ago, Members could stand in the House and the Home Secretary could come to the Dispatch Box and not fear the fact that 500 British citizens had left this country to go and fight abroad. The figure was much less then.
	The figure now is much higher in France and the rest of Europe than it is here. Thankfully, our numbers are lagging behind those of the rest of Europe. Taken as a whole, however, this is a real problem and it is getting worse. That is why the Select Committee has said on numerous occasions that what we need is a firm international platform to deal with counter-terrorism. This is done on bilaterally at the moment, and we suggested the expansion of Interpol, with all the good work international organisations such as Interpol and Europol do, and that there should be an international platform involving countries of good will. We cannot allow every country into this, because we cannot be sure about every country, but those who are on the right side—if I can put it like that, in a diplomatic way—should work together on an international platform to identify those responsible.
	We talked about the need to support countries such as Turkey. Turkey is an international hub: it is where people go before travelling on to Syria to carry on with their fighting. It is essential that we use all our resources to deal with these issues, but unless we work with families and communities as equals, we simply will not win this battle. We cannot prevent someone who is the subject of an order from going into a mosque, putting on a burqa and disappearing. We have to tell communities—no, “tell” is the wrong word; we have to work with communities and try to persuade them to come forward.
	In France, there are ways of reporting these things, just as there are here. There, they have the “green line”. Here, we have the anti-terrorist hotline. When parents in this country are having a discussion at breakfast about the possibility of their child going off to fight in Syria, they do not sit around saying, “I think we should ring the anti-terrorist hotline.” Of course they do not want to report their children for terrorism. We need to look again at the language of effective reporting, so that we can encourage people to report their suspicions without fearing that their family unit could be destroyed. Every member of the Muslim community I have spoken to condemns what is happening out there in Syria. They condemn the people who are going out there to fight. I remember listening to a father being interviewed on BBC television. When he was told that his son had died abroad, he did not even know that he had gone to fight. Families sometimes do not know these things.
	We need to ensure that there is effective monitoring, not only of those who come out of prison but of those involved in these activities. The Government and the Opposition work closely together to bring forward orders
	under prevention of terrorism legislation. Whenever Ministers come to the Dispatch Box to say that they want to ban this or that organisation, there is unanimity in the House that that should happen. It is quite right that the Government should be supported in that way, because they have information that we do not have. However, the ability of organisations to change their names and the ways in which they engage in terrorism is a cause for concern, and we need to be careful about that.
	On exclusion orders, I understand why the Government are seeking to exclude people. I understand the logic and the reasoning behind the proposals; the Home Secretary appeared before the Select Committee in December and told us why she thought they were important. However, the practicalities will provide problems, which is why it is important that we assess what the Government are doing in the near future. There will not be time to do that before the general election, but it will be worth assessing how the provisions are working.
	I recently met a delegation from Pakistan, which has its own severe troubles. The delegates were interested to hear about the Home Secretary’s exclusion orders. They asked me and my colleagues what we thought would happen if Pakistan decided to exclude any of its citizens who had been involved in these activities and prevent them from returning to Pakistan. Once those people were in Europe—and in the United Kingdom, in particular—we would be lumbered with them. If other countries decide to do what we are doing, there could be real problems. We would have to keep here certain people we would prefer to send away. International co-operation and bilateral conversations are therefore absolutely critical.
	I support the Bill. Many of the recommendations that we have made in the past seven years are in it, at least in part. Like the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, I wish that this could be the last counter-terrorism Bill that the House had to consider. I will be fighting the next election, and I hope that I will be returned to the House by the electors of Leicester East. If they want me back here and I am returned, I anticipate seeing more counter-terrorism legislation being introduced. I would be very much against having more, but if we have to have it, we have to have it. I hope, however, that we will look at the practicalities involved, so that when we put this kind of legislation through the House, we carry communities with us and ensure that the proposals are as practical as possible.

Peter Bottomley: Gérard Biard, the editor- in-chief of Charlie Hebdo, the satirical magazine which has been attacked, has said:
	“A newspaper is not a weapon of war.”
	The fact that it has been attacked is an example of how some people object to what others say and do. When I stopped being a Minister in Northern Ireland, I became associated with New Consensus and then New Dialogue, which after each IRA outrage would say, “This is not being done in our name.” That was a way of not going back to the 1970s. When there were terrorist bombs and outrages, people would start to hate the Irish, but by the 1990s most of the Irish were saying, “This is not being done in our name.” We probably need to find a way of
	letting people—not moderate Muslims but those who are just not violent—of expressing the same thing. We have to say to the French, as others have, “We are with you.” The word “solidarité” is one we can take into English; we can stand in solidarity and suffer in solidarity, just as many people did with us on 7 July 2005.
	I did not want to add to the debate on Third Reading, because I have not taken part in the Bill’s earlier stages, but I wish to say that we need to be careful about taking action that drives more people into believing that extremism works. We have to support those who have the responsibility for gathering information and trying to take action. It is worth putting on the record that the anti-terrorism hotline, which can be found by any internet search, is 0800 789 321. People may say to themselves, “I don’t know if this matters”, but when specialists get the information, or talk to someone, they can take things in and make the judgment. If anyone finds something suspicious or odd, it is far better to ring that number and provide the information to the authorities.

David Winnick: In expressing our horror about what has occurred in Paris, some understandably ask how it is possible that it could take place. They ask how it is possible that journalists could be gunned down in the way they have been because of what has been written or because of cartoons. The answer is simple: we are dealing with murderous psychopaths. If hon. Members are puzzled or mystified by how such an outrage could occur, I simply ask them to remember what the Nazis did and remember the millions of people murdered for one reason only—not their politics and so on, but simply their racial origin. We are dealing here with people with a Nazi mindset, who consider it an obligation, as the Nazis did, to take lives. I am glad that the House has had an opportunity today, both in Prime Minister’s questions and now, to express our deepest sympathy with the loved ones and relatives of those who have been murdered.
	During our consideration of this Bill I have expressed reservations on a number of occasions, and those remain. I am pleased about what has happened on judicial oversight or intervention—it does not matter which way one wants to put it, but we are talking about court involvement—in respect of temporary exclusion orders. For one reason or another, the Government have come rather late to accept that, but if they have accepted it and this will go through the Lords, that is all to the good. It is unfortunate that it could not have been decided in the elected House of Commons, but if a Home Secretary decides otherwise, there is little we can do about it.
	I praise the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who has set out clearly many of the problems we face in Britain in dealing with this terrorist danger. I simply say that what has happened in Paris has demonstrated, yet again, that we are not alone. Britain is not the only democracy to face an acute terrorist danger. Far from it: other democracies, and counties that are not democracies, also face it.
	One has only to look at the horrors that have been happening in Nigeria or in Kenya, for example. Reference has been made to 7/7, when 52 people were murdered in
	London and many were seriously injured. I was in the United States on a private visit when 9/11 occurred and that evening took part in a rally. I was staying with people in Philadelphia and notices were put up during the day on churches, on other places of worship and in community places, and we decided that we would go and show our support for the United States and our solidarity against the terrorists. We were pleased to do so and I spoke as a private British citizen—not as a Member of Parliament, which I had no authority to do—and expressed the solidarity of this country with the United States in combating terrorism.
	We must recognise that the terrorist danger will not go away in the near future. It will outlive me, although that is not saying a great deal. The danger of terrorism will remain; I wish I could come to another conclusion, and I very much doubt that the security authorities think differently. It will be a problem and a danger for years to come and it is no use our trying to deny that or to minimise the amount of time involved in trying to deal with the issue.
	I am concerned about how far we will be able in this House and in the future to maintain our democratic rights and privileges—all that we consider so important and that have been built up over centuries—while at the same time taking every possible measure to safeguard our citizens. Every Home Secretary who comes to the Dispatch Box with a new Bill says the same thing. We say the same thing in the Labour party, whether we are in opposition or government. We try to reach the right balance. The fact that I am a critic of many of the measures that have been introduced does not alter the fact I obviously accept that a balance must be reached. I recognise that there is an acute terrorist danger, as shown by all that I have been speaking about, so it would be foolish to say otherwise.
	What concerns me is covered to some extent by what was said by the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). The danger is that we will take measures that might well be necessary or essential but that could antagonise the very community we want to ensure remains on board and our ally, made up of our fellow citizens. What gives me satisfaction, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East was absolutely right on this point, is the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims not only in Britain but in France and in other countries loathe and despise the terrorism that is supposedly carried out in their names in the same way as we do. That is a great asset. It is understandable and we would not expect otherwise, but we must be very careful about the measures we take to safeguard our citizens so that they do not undermine that support and give the terrorists the sort of ammunition they would like. All the indications are that terrorism will have very limited support in this country, as shown in what occurred after 7/7, when all the Muslims I spoke to in my constituency—my right hon. Friend referred to those in his constituency—condemned it in the strongest possible terms, as I would have expected. In the same way, we have done that in the House of Commons.
	The challenge in the coming years, as I have said, is to protect our democracy and protect the rule of law as we understand it while at the same time trying to ensure the safety and security of our citizens so that the crimes and atrocities that occurred on 7/7 and in Paris today are not repeated.

Pete Wishart: It seems a bit odd to be having the last word on this Bill after having spent five days debating and discussing it. May I congratulate the Front Bench and shadow Front Bench teams on the consensual way in which they have approached these issues? We have significantly improved this Bill from its early conception, but it was perhaps a tad over-optimistic to have five full days of debate on it. On some days, the Chamber has been a bit like the Mary Celeste on a foggy day—perhaps Members are counter-terrored out. We have had a number of these Bills over the past few years, and no doubt, as the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) has said, we will see many more in the future. We will come back to this issue time and again, and we will have to deal with it year on year. I can already see that we will have another such Bill early in the new Parliament when we reconvene in May.
	I do not want to add anything more to what I have already said about the events in Paris this afternoon other than that I hope we have learned something from those appalling events and that we approach and respond to them proportionately. In the past, the temptation has always been to have a knee-jerk response. Indeed this idea that something must be done is a characteristic of so many of the Bills that we have debated over the course of the year: we must be seen to be doing something, to be strong and to be acting. I hope that there is not that kind of response to the events in Paris. We have seen it so many times in previous counter-terror Bills. We have seen the response of a Labour Government—ID cards, the possibility of 90-day detentions and control orders. Let us try to be more imaginative this time around, and respond to the attack in a proportionate way.
	At the heart of all such Bills—we have seen it with this particular Bill—is attention. We need to ensure that our citizens are safe and secure and that we pay attention to civil liberties and the freedoms that we enjoy in a democracy. I see many veterans of previous counter-terror Bills in the Chamber. They know what it is to wrestle with the problems. There is this clear balance that we have to strike between our civil liberties and the measures that are needed to keep our citizens safe. Does this Bill achieve that? I do not think so. Again, we have mucked about at the edge of our liberties. We have sacrificed some of the freedoms that we have the right to enjoy in a democracy. As we go forward, we must ensure that we get absolutely right that balance between what we expect as citizens of a democracy and the measures that Governments must take to keep us safe.
	This Bill came alive when we discussed the Prevent measures and the radicalisation in our communities. Some of the things that this Government are doing are right, especially the way that they have tried to engage communities. They want to ensure that communities have the resources, ability and capacity to try to tackle the problem themselves. That is the right thing to do.
	We have failed in some of our measures and debates to recognise why people get involved in these terrible activities. Nobody is born predisposed to be a jihadist or a terrorist and to do appalling things. Something happens along the way that makes people respond in a particular way. It might be ultimate frustration or a feeling that no other means can be used to exact political change. Something happens, and we have failed to
	understand some of the features that determine the development in some people’s minds. I hope that in the future we can look at this matter a bit more carefully and clearly. We must also take our share of responsibility for shaping the environment. It would be good if we could acknowledge some of the terrible decisions that we have taken in this House. I am talking about those things that may have provoked some of the responses that we have seen internationally. The war in Iraq, for example, was illegal. If we are looking at any sort of starting point or trajectory for things to escalate in the way that they have, we have to come back to this clear issue. We set that framework up and must start to accept our responsibility for shaping that environment.
	I am disappointed that exclusion orders, which are a key feature of the Bill, have been left to be determined by the unelected House of Lords. I think that we, as Members of Parliament who are elected by our constituents, have a duty to consider these things ourselves. We had the opportunity to put that right yesterday. The public expect us to deal with these issues and make the decisions ourselves, not to leave it to the other place, whose Members are not elected, to sort it out behind the scenes, particularly on something as important as counter-terrorism and security. I hope that when the Bill comes back to the House we will have an opportunity to debate exclusion orders properly. We will look at what the Government are offering on temporary exclusion orders and will be able to make some sort of progress.
	There are many things in the Bill that I do not like, such as the balance it strikes with our civil liberties, which I think is wrong, as it is in most of these Bills. However, we will not oppose it. When we return here in May, hopefully with about 30 or 40 Scottish National party Members, I am sure that we will revisit the matter. Let us make sure that in future we do not rush such legislation through at breakneck speed. We must take our time on these weighty and important matters, which deserve proper scrutiny. Let us deal with them properly. One thing that we will certainly be doing is coming back here to discuss this once again.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Proceeds of Crime, Northern Ireland

That the draft Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 25 November 2014, be approved.—(Mr Wallace.)

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Organic Food Production

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 7956/14, a draft Regulation on organic production and labelling of organic products, amending Regulation (EU) No. XXX/XXX [Official Controls Regulation] and repealing Council Regulation
	(EC) No. 834/2007, and No. 8194/14, a Commission Communication: Action Plan for the future of organic production in the European Union; and supports the Government’s approach to amend the proposal to promote continued development of the organic sector and ensure it has an overall positive impact on growth and trade, minimises unnecessary administrative burdens, promotes effective trade across the EU and with third countries, delivers organic products at a fair price and reduces the impact on the environment.—
	(Mr Wallace.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (LORDS SPIRITUAL (WOMEN) BILL)

Ordered
	That, in respect of the Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—(Mr Wallace.)

SPEAKER’S COMMITTEE FOR THE INDEPENDENT PARLIAMENTARY STANDARDS AUTHORITY (MOTION)

Ordered,
	That the Motion in the name of Mr William Hague relating to the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—(Mr Wallace.)

HAIRDRESSING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Wallace.)

Nia Griffith: I am very pleased to have secured this debate and to have the opportunity to explain why we need to extend the current system of state registration of hairdressers, which is voluntary, to make it compulsory. Nowadays, people living in our sophisticated and complex modern-day society assume that the goods and services they buy, particularly on the high street, are in fact regulated. Most of us make the assumption when we go to the hairdressers that we are being treated by people who are suitably qualified, and much of the time we are.
	I was quite shocked, therefore, to find out that in the UK a person does not need any qualifications at all to practise as a hairdresser. In other words, the industry is unregulated. Of course, the majority of hairdressers have appropriate qualifications, work to a high standard and take great care of their customers. However, currently there is nothing to protect the consumer from the unscrupulous or the incompetent, and that is what worries me.
	I believe that as a society we have a duty to protect people from the unscrupulous as far as we can, so I want to ensure that a service as commonplace as hairdressing is properly regulated so that we and our families, our young people and our children are properly protected. That becomes even more relevant when we consider the wide range of different types of treatment now available. Hairdressing can involve using sharp implements and styling instruments, as well as a range of powerful chemicals that can inflict third-degree burns. That is frightening and it is not acceptable that we do not require any statutory registration of the people using those substances and implements on our heads, our hair, our skin and close to our eyes, our ears, our face and our brains.
	Sometimes we can be our own worst enemies. Before we use certain colouring on our hair, we should have a skin test and wait a couple of days to see if there is any allergic reaction, but we are impatient and tend to want everything instantly. Scrupulously careful hairdressers tell me that they sometimes lose customers because they insist on a skin test, but the customer is too impatient to wait for the result and goes to a salon which does not require the test. When things go wrong, it can be very distressing for the person concerned and ultimately, if medical treatment is needed, it is likely to be the NHS—that is, the taxpayer—who picks up the bill.
	I pay tribute to the Hair Council, formerly the Hairdressing Council, for the work that it has done to highlight the issue of compulsory state registration of hairdressers and barbers. I know, for example, that just in this place there is much greater awareness of the issue among MPs than there was just a few years ago. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), who introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on the subject. I thank the training, hairdressing and barbering industries for taking a lead and demonstrating how seriously they take the professionalism of their industry. I have had valuable conversations with the hairdressers in my constituency, who tell me that they
	are concerned to maintain high standards and to ensure that new recruits to the industry also perform to high standards.
	Hairdressing and barbering are industries that we in the UK are very proud of. They are sectors of key importance to the economy, contributing some £2.6 billion to the UK economy and employing nearly 250,000 people across 55,000 businesses. Even in the current tough economic climate, we can walk down any high street or through any town centre and find several hairdressing salons or barbershops.

Alison Seabeck: I, too, have written to all the hairdressers in my constituency, seeking their views about regulation. My hon. Friend is right. They want to be seen as responsible and do not want to cause anybody damage when they visit the salon. Does my hon. Friend agree that partly because of the recession and partly because of the increase in the number of people who are self-employed, an increasing number of people are providing hairdressing services in people’s homes, over which there are no checks whatever? That causes me concern.

Nia Griffith: Indeed. My hon. Friend is right. For a hairdresser working as a sole operator in a home where there is nobody to point out to them that they have done something wrongly, it is even more important that they are properly qualified and that the person employing them has some validation of that. We would check whether a plumber was properly registered; that is far more important in respect of our own body.

Alison Seabeck: The protection of hairdressers is also important, to ensure that they are protected if anything goes wrong.

Nia Griffith: Indeed. Insurance companies will have vital role to play. If there is compulsory state registration, insurance companies will expect professionals to comply with the law and to mention any changes in circumstance. It will be in hairdressers’ best interest to be registered and to be properly insured.
	In our town centres, it is often the hairdressing shops that pull people in, which can be welcome. With competition from internet shopping and out-of-town shopping, anything that increases footfall in town centres can be useful to the neighbouring shops, not just the hairdressers and barbers.
	Habia, the Government-approved standards-setting body for the industry, estimates that hairdressing and barbering account for nearly 1% of the entire UK economy. They also make up a huge percentage of new start-ups. Habia estimates that 41% of hairdressers are self-employed, and 93.5% work in a workplace employing between one and 10 employees.
	I must emphasise that the vast majority of these businesses are respected. The hairdressers are highly competent and have worked long and hard to train to a proficient and qualified standard. However, as always, some do not fall into this category and damage this good reputation. To prevent this, the Government of the day introduced the Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964, which created the Hairdressing Council and provided
	its current constitution. Under the Act, a person can apply to be state registered in the same way as doctors, nurses and dentists. The only difference is that it is completely voluntary to belong to the UK register of qualified hairdressers—a status that can be achieved either through qualification or six years practising as a hairdresser. Ideally, every hairdresser and barber should be state registered, which would eliminate those who practise with no qualifications or experience whatsoever. The problem with the Act is that it does not have any power to safeguard the consumer with a framework of minimum qualification standards and compulsory state regulation of the industry—it is entirely voluntary. The campaign by the Hair Council, which I fully support, would allow for compulsory registration of all hairdressers and barbers.
	Let us be honest: we have moved on a long way since 1964. If we want to be reminded of what teenage boys looked like in 1964, we just have to go on to the internet and look for the sleeve of the Beatles’ LP, “A Hard Day’s Night”, and that will give us a good impression. Most of us will remember that hairdressers were about the short back and sides for boys, with schools complaining if hair touched the collar. We knew that our mothers or grandmothers went for a perm now and again. Of course, nowadays there is a whole range of treatments and people have such a variety of different opportunities for things to do with their hair. Dangerous chemicals are used routinely. Without proper training and qualifications, there is no guarantee for customers that they might not be burnt, injured or permanently physically disfigured by the inappropriate use of these chemicals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) said, many people are turning to mobile hairdressers, and it is even more important that they should be properly state registered and therefore regulated.
	We need to ensure quality and safety standards within the hairdressing and barbering industry. Many hairdressers who are not state registered practise great hairdressing and run successful salons, but registration is about guaranteeing a minimum level of competence for the consumer and deterring those who are not fit to practise from setting up. As politicians, we have a duty of care to members of the public. When things do go wrong and there are accidents resulting from the misuse of chemicals or dyes, it can be very distressing for the persons concerned. Ultimately, if medical treatment is needed, it is likely that the NHS—namely, the taxpayer—will pick up the bill.
	Similar questions and concerns were raised in the wake of the Poly Implant Prothèse implants problem. Professor Sir Bruce Keogh headed up a review of the regulation of cosmetic interventions—in particular, non-surgical procedures such as dermal fillers, beauty treatments, collagen and Botox injections, chemical peels, and laser hair removal. In his report published in April 2013, he notes:
	“Dermal fillers are a particular cause for concern as anyone can set themselves up as a practitioner, with no requirement for knowledge, training or previous experience.”
	The Government have supported the recommendations of the report, one of which states:
	“All non-surgical procedures must be performed under the responsibility of a clinical professional who has gained the accredited qualification”.
	Most notably, it recommends that all practitioners should be registered, and states:
	“Entry to the register should be subject to…achievement of accredited qualification”.
	Some of these procedures could easily be undertaken in a spa or a salon, so let us make sure that we get regulation all round.
	The introduction of compulsory registration for hairdressers and barbers would bring hairdressing and barbering into line with other industries in the UK. It would be similar, for example, to the regulation of taxi drivers or food hygiene: one would not expect to go into a restaurant that had not been properly regulated.
	Registration of hairdressers and barbers is required elsewhere. In the USA, for example, practitioners are required to have a licence to practise and to provide evidence of training and certification in each business area they intend to provide at their salon. There are on-site inspections and trade tests, and a consumer complaints and procedures route. If they move state, they have to satisfy the regulations of the state to which they move. Australia has a similar set-up, with practitioners required to be registered. The UK remains one of the few countries in Europe that does not require the state registration of hairdressers or their equivalents.
	The Hair Council has already made significant progress not only in raising the issue within the industry and with decision makers, but in consulting and drawing up details of how the system might work in practice. The questions that many people will rightly ask are about its cost, how it will be policed and how it will work in practice. There will clearly have to be proper consultation within the industry and a transition phase, but I will return to that later.
	Once the system is up and running, it should be relatively easy to police. There will be a list of registered hairdressers. Just as now, people will be able to find their nearest state-registered hairdresser on the Hair Council website. The public and trading standards officers alike will be able to consult the list. Consumers will be able to check whether their hairdresser is state registered, just as they can for their plumber. Trading standards offices will be able to use it as a tool for checking what is happening in the local neighbourhood. When officers make inspections of local salons, they can also check the credentials of the people who are working there.
	Ultimately, insurance companies are likely to provide the greatest motivation for hairdressers and salon owners to comply, and to make sure that all their staff are state-registered hairdressers. We all know that we have to comply with the terms and conditions of insurance policies for them to be valid, and that we have to report any change in circumstances. No hairdresser or salon owner will want to pay for insurance only to find that it is invalid. The requirement by insurance companies for hairdressers to comply with the law—they will provide cover for hairdressers serving the public only if they are state registered—will therefore provide a strong motivation for them to register and to employ only those who are state registered.
	The Hair Council has estimated that the system can be run at no extra cost above the current fee of £40 per annum per individual hairdresser. In fact, it sees that figure as a maximum. No-one likes to pay any fee, but in the great scheme of things, it is not an unreasonable
	amount and could be recouped from customers relatively quickly. The cost per customer over a year would be negligible, and customers would find it a very small price to pay for knowing that the hairdressers and barbers that they and their family use are registered and therefore regulated.
	On implementation, the structures and the mechanisms are already in place, and the Hair Council has done a lot of preparatory work. We already have the legislation. A registration scheme is in place—its framework has existed since 1964—and it is administered by the Hair Council. The Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964 created the then Hairdressing Council and provided its constitution. Under the Act, a person can apply to be state registered in the same way as doctors, nurses and dentists. We are now seeking to make state registration compulsory.
	The Hair Council has done a lot of work and has come up with proposals. It suggests that, as the keeper of the register of hairdressers and barbers, its remit would be extended from the maintenance of a voluntary register to keeping a statutory register, with the ability to set and enforce penalties where necessary. The Hair Council is committed to consultation within the industry, and to be both consumer and industry-focused in its communications. It proposes that those already practising as a hairdresser or barber in the UK would be required to join the register by a certain date—perhaps up to two years after the change in the legislation. That would be followed by a period of strict scrutiny, using a team of inspectors recruited for the sole objective of visiting salons. Practising hairdressers or barbers—whether mobile operatives, salon-based or self-employed individuals—would need to register to be able to function correctly and legally.
	Trainers would be expected to inform learners that once they had obtained a level 2 national vocational qualification, they would be required to register before they could practise lawfully. That would educate individuals intending to work in a self-employed capacity about the need to register. Compliance could be monitored by qualification-awarding organisations.
	When I have consulted local salons, they have stressed the need for high-quality training, so I was pleased to see in December that my local further education college, coleg Sir Gâr, has signed up to registering all its lecturers, assessors and qualified learners with the Hair Council. It clearly makes sense that all those who are training and assessing the next generation of hairdressers should themselves be state-registered.
	Qualified professional hairdressers and barbers are drivers of growth on our high streets. They support local employment, train apprentices, serve their communities and contribute significantly to the UK economy, and it is time for the industry to be put on a much firmer regulatory footing to reflect that. We have regulatory and consumer laws because they reflect good practice. The majority of responsible practitioners already come up to or surpass the necessary standards, but we need legislation to provide protection from the unscrupulous or incompetent. A change in the law would not only ensure consumer protection but enhance standards and provide professional recognition for the industry. I therefore ask the Minister to take the initiative and to take the necessary steps to ensure that we are all properly protected, by introducing the compulsory registration of hairdressers.

Richard Fuller: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), and I thank her for providing me with the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I join her in placing on record admiration for barbers and hairdressers—one needs only to look around the House to see what a challenge it can be. You, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, are at the top of the list. It is undoubtedly a challenge to get every individual’s hair correct. May I place on record my particular thanks to Sugaz barbers of Lime street, Bedford, for their tremendous dedication to making the Member of Parliament for Bedford look presentable in public these past four or five years?
	Hairdressing is a tough profession, as every individual has their own needs and tastes. As the hon. Lady said, the skill sets in the industry and the services and products it provides have progressed dramatically over the past 20 or 30 years. I would also point out the size of the industry. As she said, it is not a small sector of our economy but a considerable one. It employs a large number of people, and there are a large number of businesses in it. It affects all of us—we all use the services of a hairdresser or barber on a regular basis, perhaps until we become follically challenged.
	The hon. Lady did not mention another important aspect of the sector, which is that setting up a salon or becoming a barber or hairdresser is one of the most accessible ways for people to start out in their own profession or start up their own business. For a lot of people, formal education is not their direct interest, but making people feel better and bringing happiness to their lives is how hundreds of thousands of people contribute to our society. Hairdressing has historically been a relatively easy way for people to get involved in setting up a business. That is why I disagree with the hon. Lady’s approach to regulation, if I may say so, even though she outlined a solid case. Frankly, I do not want the state cutting my hair. More deeply than that, I believe that sufficient protections for the consumer are already in place. If I may, I will go through a number of them in turn.

Madeleine Moon: The hon. Gentleman has graciously thanked his hairdresser, but may I say that on the whole, his hairdresser’s task is rather simple? The point is the greater complication, and the use of chemicals and other products, when a woman’s hair is styled. That is often a more technical and difficult task, and that is where regulation is required.

Richard Fuller: I hear what the hon. Lady says, and I will state why I think regulation is not the approach to take. If that does not satisfy her, especially on the issue of chemical use, perhaps she will make a further intervention or contribution.
	My first point applies to almost all barbers and hairdressers, because they almost all go through formal training. Bedford college has an active range of courses for people who want to become hairdressers and barbers. They go through the training, learn about the use of chemicals, different styles, techniques and human interactions, and achieve a good qualification.

Nia Griffith: If, as the hon. Gentleman says, the vast majority of hairdressers go through the process of getting a proper qualification, should we not give them
	credit for that, and ensure that someone who has not done so is not able to give the whole industry a bad name by doing something inappropriate or stupid? As he says, many hairdressers have done a lot of work and trained, and if they were asked to register because it was compulsory, I am sure the vast majority would be proud to do so.

Richard Fuller: There are a number of points in that. First, people who work for a qualification get that qualification and credit at the end of their training course, which is a sense of celebration and merit for them. Secondly, if they believe it is valuable to get that additional accreditation from the council, that is perfectly open to them. There is nothing barring someone from taking on that accreditation, but the hon. Lady proposes not to treat accreditation in that way but to make it a compulsory requirement, and that is where I differ from her approach. Qualifications provide people with that credit, and the sector currently works adequately at that level.
	Another factor is word of mouth. If there is one part of our lives where word of mouth has a big influence on where we go, it must surely be in who cuts our hair. We listen to what people say, perhaps when we are younger, and then we stick with someone and they cut our hair for many years into the future. We get to know who we want from what other people say, and we tend to stick with what we know. In that type of structure, and given how demand in a market works, regulation seems to be more of an impediment and intrusion into people’s normal practice of finding the right barber or hairdresser than a help.
	Supply and demand works. If someone is operating a salon and provides poor or risky service, they will go out of business because in most communities people know which barbers and hairdressers do not work effectively. As I said, there is already quite a lot of conversational management about the quality of service in that sector, and that has been supplemented by online sources. Nowadays people seeking a hairdresser can look at ratings and recommendations online, just as they can for other services. Finally, in the rare occurrences when a problem does occur, one can obviously seek redress directly from the salon for any impediment caused, and if a very severe issue has caused an injury, there is the opportunity for litigation. Plenty of measures are already in place that make regulation an unnecessary, perhaps even distracting, step.
	The hon. Member for Llanelli said that regulation helps to stop the unscrupulous, but we had plenty of regulation in banking and that did not stop unscrupulous behaviour. She specifically mentioned taxi drivers. We have regulation in that sector, but in a number of activities there is still unscrupulous behaviour by taxi drivers. I do not see regulation, perhaps as the hon. Lady does, as providing a guarantee that something will be right. In fact, I believe that our understanding of how markets and people work, what we hear from our friends and others, and the service we directly receive, is a much better guide and form of consumer protection than blanket regulation.
	I understand that the proposed measure is in the interests of the British Hair Council. I understand that it has about 6,000 registered members from the 250,000 people who could be registered, which is a relatively low proportion. Rather than compelling people to join,
	perhaps the council should ask itself some tough questions about why it has achieved such a low level of penetration. Why is its offer not attractive enough for people to join? It is not the job of government to give the council a leg up so that it can increase its membership—it should be doing that itself. I think the hon. Lady confirmed that the membership fee is £42, so the council, with its current 6,000 members, has an income of £250,000 a year. Were we to make membership compulsory, that income would go up to £10 million a year. I can therefore see a clear and direct financial interest for the council to be pushing this measure, through both the private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) and today’s debate. I can see why the council is pushing very hard, but I am not hearing any compelling argument, related to either consumer satisfaction or industry improvement, about why we should take that step.

Nia Griffith: The hon. Gentleman needs to take into consideration why one would register if it is not compulsory. There are lots of professional organisations to which people do not necessarily belong if they are not compulsory. When I was a modern languages teacher, I could have belonged to about three or four organisations, in addition to the trade union to which I belonged. If there is to be no regulation, how would the hon. Gentleman guarantee that somebody could not practise if they were not competent to do so? He talks about word of mouth; that might be all right for the established person, but it does not help the newly qualified person in setting up, which is one of the arguments he made. Why is it that he rejects any form of protection? Does he have another idea how that offer of a proper guarantee could be put in place, so that people could see a sticker in a window and know that the salon—or the individual, if it is someone visiting a house—is properly qualified? Is there another way to guarantee that?

Richard Fuller: First, as a politician I do not think I should be guaranteeing the quality of service that someone receives in a hair salon. Secondly, I do not think that regulation is the same as a guarantee, and I have tried to make that point. Regulation is, as the hon. Lady rightly says, a sticker in the window, but there are plenty of examples of regulation not providing protection. It can sometimes be misguiding to say that people are protected when they are not. If we want protection, we might have to put in place compensation schemes and ask the taxpayer to fund situations where there have been negative consequences. The hon. Lady and I have a substantially differing approach to whether it is appropriate for politicians to guarantee, and to whether a guarantee means protection. As I tried to set out earlier, there are a number of layers of informal protection that guide our decision to get a haircut in salon A or salon B.
	The hon. Lady mentioned the Hair Council’s proposal to have inspectors going around regulating. That would be really tough. The Care Quality Commission has to regulate, I think, 21,000 care homes, and we know that that does not necessarily provide a guarantee of service. There are even more hair salons, so unless there is a very cursory inspection—just popping in and popping out—that would be a substantial undertaking. I have some scepticism about whether the council is currently in a position to provide the level of insight the hon. Lady thinks it can in an industry that is so widely distributed and so small
	scale individually. The sector also has quite a high turnover—a number of salons will set up and then fail—so there will perhaps be even more than the headline number of salons that need to be regulated.
	The hon. Lady set out a good case, but I disagree with her approach. She talked about the regulation of new industries—for example botox and so on. There is a question—perhaps the Minister will address it—of whether there should be a difference of approach when we look at new industries, such as those providing botox and cosmetic surgery, that do not have a track record of customer service and what people understand, as there is in industries, such as hairdressing, that have been established for generations. What about nail salons? If the Minister is minded to agree with the hon. Lady, does he think we should also regulate nail salons? If so, how many nail salons would we have to cover? If not, why would we cover one, but not the other?
	The hon. Lady did not mention Europe, but given the title of the debate, I want to talk about pending European regulations relating to the hairdressing industry in the UK. When many of us on the Government Benches hear about European regulation—this is a poor joke—we are minded to pull our hair out. [Interruption.] I said it was a poor joke. [Hon. Members: “It was a very poor joke”.] It is late in the day, so I can get away with it.
	There is, however, a much more important non-joke issue that was drawn to my attention by the National Hairdressers’ Federation, which is based in my constituency: the framework agreement proposed by the EU on occupational health and safety protection. As I understand it, the Commission is seeking to make the framework voluntary agreement into something that is legally binding in all member states and for all businesses in the industry. This raises several issues. First, I am not sure we want additional European regulation in a sector in the UK. Secondly, it would not apply to those who are self-employed; it would apply only to businesses and so create a two-tier level of occupational health and safety protection? Thirdly, the European trade federation has said it would have severely negative consequences for the sector.
	I think that most people who run salons would say it is a tough, low-margin business where every cost matters. Do we really want to add an additional burden from the EU? I understand that 10 member states have already expressed their opposition to making the regulation legally binding. Will the Minister give us his views and tell us whether the UK has or will oppose making it legally binding rather than a matter of voluntary compliance? In most sectors, voluntary compliance works effectively.
	The hon. Lady has made a strong case for an alternative point of view, but it is a case I disagree with, and I hope that the Minister will also disagree. However, I am grateful to both of them for the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Mark Harper: I will not be as bold as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), but will steer clear of commenting on the quality of Members’ hairstyling; I think I will stay on safe ground.
	I am sure the House will commend the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) for bringing this issue to its attention. She is right that it concerns a significant
	industry that affects almost all the population who use hairdressers or barbers. I am familiar with the Hair Council’s campaign—my predecessor met with Sally Styles, the chief executive officer, to discuss the issues—and I am aware of the recent debate on the subject in the Welsh Assembly. I am sure that the hon. Lady, in her constituency and shadow ministerial roles, will be familiar with that.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford and the hon. Member for Llanelli said, the hairdressing and beauty industry is important to the UK economy. It contributes about £5 billion a year and employs about 250,000 people, and it is dominated by small and micro-business, with about 36,000 salons and 3,000 barbers. The majority of the work force is female and a high proportion of people are self-employed. My hon. Friend made the point about the low barriers to entry and its being a very competitive industry. That is an important tool in ensuring that an industry is well regulated, because anyone who delivers poor customer service will not be in business for long in a business that is competitive and where people share knowledge about the quality of service they receive.
	Of course, nobody wants to see incompetent people in the profession, unsatisfactory conditions of hygiene or unsafe use of chemicals, all of which could impact on business owners, employees and members of the public. However, I listened carefully to what the hon. Lady said and the thing that was missing from her speech—I will perhaps not be as generous as my hon. Friend, because I do not think she made a strong case—was what is the problem that we are trying to solve. Despite the size of the industry, how many people work in it and how many customers it has, I did not hear any analysis in her speech of what the problem was. She did not set out a compelling argument that large numbers of people are damaged by incompetent hairdressers, nor did she lay out a real problem that we are trying to solve. She laid out some theoretical risks, but they are not risks in practice. The Government’s position on health and safety regulation is that we should take a proportionate approach to risk and have regulation to deal with the amount of risk that exists, not overburden industry with unnecessary red tape.

Nia Griffith: Does the Minister not accept, though, that rather than waiting for disasters and scandals to happen, it is better to see what we can do in advance? This is a widespread industry; lots of teenagers go and get their hair done and all the rest of it; and just as we have seen with tanning salons and tattoo parlours and so forth, people sometimes end up doing things that perhaps are inappropriate. Would it not be better to put in place a system that we can properly use, rather than just leaving things to drift?

Mark Harper: This comes back to one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford. The hon. Lady’s argument might have some force if we were talking about a radical new industry, but we are talking about something that has been around for a long time and that has a clear track record showing that the problem that she suggests might occur is just not there. There is a genuine issue about how health and safety regulation can ensure that people can go to work and
	return home safely, not be killed, injured or damaged, and that members of the public can have the same protection. However, the Government’s general approach to regulation, particularly in the health and safety space, is to ensure that it focuses on where the risks are, not where they are not. As I have said, I did not hear in her speech a compelling case for the problem that she is trying to solve, and I do not think there is one, which is why I am not attracted to her solution.

Madeleine Moon: My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) made the point that the industry has moved on. We have moved on from the days of the short back and sides for men. Men now have more products used on their hair, as do women. Women are having hair extensions, which can result in hair being pulled out, and are having different chemicals used on their hair all the time. Hairdressing is a more technically-minded industry, rather than just a creative, simplistic industry, where people went for a perm or a set, or a short back and sides. It is that change in the nature of the industry that has led to calls for greater regulation.

Mark Harper: I will come to the point about regulating the use of chemicals in a minute, but as I have said, I do not think a compelling case for the problem has been set out.
	We welcome what the Hair Council does in operating its voluntary registration scheme and we support initiatives to improve professional competence and standards. However, it is interesting that about 10% of hairdressers—that is my understanding; I do not necessarily agree with the exact statistic used by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford—are registered in the voluntary registration scheme that was implemented under the 1964 Act. Although the hon. Member for Llanelli said that the industry would support compulsory registration, the fact that only 10% of those in the industry are registered with the Hair Council suggests to me that they do not think there is a compelling argument that membership of that organisation is necessary to show their customers that they have the appropriate competence and skill. I think my hon. Friend is right: when people get a hairdresser they are confident in, they tend to stick with them for quite a long time. In my experience, good hairdressers have a good reputation and attract business in that way, and poor ones go out of business very quickly. I do not think the evidence suggests that the industry wants compulsory registration.
	My hon. Friend is also right that the idea that a state registration scheme is a guarantee that everything will be fine is simply not right and is not shown by a range of other industries that have elements of regulation where that does not guarantee high quality. The thing that guarantees high quality is a competitive industry, low barriers to entry and a competitive marketplace. People who deliver poor customer service will not be around for very long. The evidence suggests that hairdressing is a generally well run sector of the economy and that the individuals and businesses supported by the trade bodies take sensible and proportionate measures effectively to manage the health and safety risks to their employees and customers.
	The hon. Member for Llanelli said that there were not any measures or regulations to protect people in the industry at the moment. That is simply not true. Businesses operating in the hairdressing sector are covered by
	health and safety at work legislation and public health legislation, which are enforced by local authorities. They are covered by the provisions within the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, which set out requirements about identifying hazards, the control of risks, the provision of training and information for staff and the need for advice. If chemicals are used, there are other regulations about controlling substances hazardous to health, the use of work equipment, manual handling, welfare and personal protective equipment. There are already quite a lot of regulations, with which a hairdresser or hairdressing salon has to comply to ensure that they do not present a risk to their customers or their members of staff.

Nia Griffith: What research has the Minister done on the level of understanding of that legislation by hairdressers who go house to house to work?

Mark Harper: I have not done any specific work on that, but I do not think there is any evidence that there is a problem to be solved. Everyone who runs a business has to comply with health and safety legislation, but it is proportionate to the risk that they run. As I said, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford; I do not think the evidence suggests a risk in this industry to justify imposing a state registration scheme. That is the first point, and the second is that I do not think there is any evidence that if we did so, it would have any impact on making the industry better. It is generally a well run industry, with some high-quality individuals and businesses operating, which delivers good customer service.
	As well as providing a legislative framework, the Health and Safety Executive produces guidance for small businesses. It has an example risk assessment for hairdressing salons, which is accessed between 200 and 400 times each month. It goes through the common hazards that might be present in a hairdressing salon, the harm that can be caused to staff and customers and it suggests the sorts of actions that salons and hairdressers can take to control the risks. The HSE works closely with the National Hairdressers Federation and the Hairdressing and Beauty Industry Authority, which is the Government-appointed sector skills body that controls the standards that form the basis of all qualifications, to raise awareness of health issues.
	The hon. Lady mentioned the training aspects. In my constituency, the Forest of Dean campus of Gloucester college trains people in the hair and beauty industry. I have been along myself and I recall for a short period sitting in the chair as a model while various people practised on me. That demonstrated the high level of skill and training in the industry. The college works closely with local employers and the standards are very high.
	A good example of joint working was the “Bad Hand Day” campaign, which the HSE ran in partnership with the industry to raise awareness of how to prevent hairdressers suffering dermatitis. The HSE has run a recent health and safety campaign, which targeted small businesses across a number of industries, including the beauty industry. The HSE produced “Health & Safety ABC: An easy guide to health and safety”, which was supported by both the Hairdressing and Beauty Industry Authority and the National Hairdressers Federation,
	while 92% of those surveyed in the beauty industry said that the health and safety of their customers was either a major or moderate concern. Most people in the industry recognise that there is something they need to be concerned about and take appropriate steps to deal with it.
	There are some other regulations under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, and a new suite of health protection regulations came into effect in April 2010. This updated an “all hazards” approach, dealing with infections and contaminations. Public authorities are thus able to respond to modern-day health hazards. As well as local authorities, Public Health England, Public Health Wales and Health Protection Scotland have an interest in protecting the public from harm in the wider beauty industry.
	Hairdressing products, which the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) mentioned, are also regulated—I am sorry to say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford—under the EU cosmetics directive, which offers a further layer of protection for customers in that any product used must be authorised, properly labelled and packaged.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford and the hon. Member for Llanelli compared these proposals with measures taken to control other professions in the beauty industry, and the hon. Lady specifically mentioned other cosmetic treatments. There is a distinction between the Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and wider public health legislation that regulates more invasive cosmetic treatments, such as the one that she mentioned. It is necessary to apply regulation that is proportionate to risk. The report to which she referred was clearly a response to some of the risks involved—I think I am right in saying that it was triggered partly by some of the fall-out from the issue of breast implants—and I do not think that it is relevant to the hairdressing industry.
	Local authorities have powers, under various local Acts, to exercise a proper degree of control over standards of health and hygiene, which includes the cleanliness of premises, instruments and equipment, and they have powers to inspect. They take enforcement action, such as prosecuting poorly performing hairdressing salons, under the existing regulatory framework. Notwithstanding what was said by the hon. Lady, there is already a fairly comprehensive regulatory framework, which is designed to protect both staff and customers in hairdressing salons. If people comply with that legislation, the risks—which are relatively low—will be properly controlled, and I therefore see no case for extending it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford referred to moves on the European front, specifically the European framework agreement on the protection of occupational health and safety in the hairdressing sector. The Government do not want that agreement to become a compulsory directive, and we have been working with like-minded states to prevent its implementation as such. We have no objection to a voluntary scheme, but, having analysed the agreement, we think that it duplicates a great deal of existing legislation. Moreover, an initial assessment suggests that it would impose an extra cost of £75 million on hairdressing businesses in the United Kingdom alone, without improving existing standards.
	My hon. Friend mentioned nail salons. They are effectively covered by the same regulatory framework as hairdressers, so they must comply with the same health and safety regulations and public health legislation.
	The hon. Member for Llanelli asked whether insurers could require hairdressers to be state-registered. Hairdressing businesses, like all other businesses, are already required to have employers’ liability insurance, and responsible businesses will have public liability insurance as well. Again, a regulatory framework already ensures that businesses providing these services are properly insured and therefore have the appropriate financial resources if they cause damage to their customers.
	I do not think that the hon. Lady has set out a problem that needs to be solved. Hairdressing is an important industry that employs a great many people, is generally well run and delivers a good customer service, but it is already subject to a comprehensive range of regulatory laws contained in primary and secondary legislation that ensures that the risks must be dealt with properly.

Alison Seabeck: Throughout the Minister’s speech—it has been an interesting speech, in which he has expressed a different view from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith)—he has referred to a lack of evidence. Given that 70% of hairdressers suffer from conditions such as dermatitis at some point in their lives, there is no doubt that customers will also be subject to problems caused by chemicals, latex gloves and other equipment. Customers may enter salons without fully understanding some of the risks, particularly if the staff are not particularly experienced. That is a significant issue. The Minister says that he is opposed to regulation, but would it not be worthwhile to carry out research among customers as well as hairdressers about the nature of the problems that people experience in salons, given that we clearly do not know enough about it?

Mark Harper: The alternative way of looking at that is that if there was a real problem, we would know about it. As constituency MPs, lots of issues come to our attention, and I am digging through my memory and in my nine years as a Member of Parliament I do not think I have ever had a single letter complaining about appalling treatment by a hairdressing salon in my constituency. In fact the opposite is the case; I have been fortunate enough to go to salons in my constituency to present awards to high performing and well-trained
	members of staff. If there was a real problem that affected significant numbers of people, I think we would know about it.

Alison Seabeck: We have some fantastic salons in Plymouth, all of which are performing incredibly well, but if we go on Google and type in “hairdressing” and “accidents”, enormous numbers of messages from solicitors’ firms pop up on our screen saying, “Let us help you with your claim against your hairdresser,” so something is clearly going on out there.

Mark Harper: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me for saying that just because there are lots of ambulance-chasing lawyers around trying to dream up and invent legal actions in a particular sector does not necessarily give a good indication of whether there is a problem to solve. We all know about such lawyers trying to dream up and invent legal actions; we have seen what happens with people trying to sue others for car accidents and inventing claims and driving up motor insurance premiums. In the hairdressing sector, therefore, given that we already have a range of health and safety legislation, I do not think further legislation would deliver much gain to employees or customers.
	The issue the hon. Member for Llanelli was raising was professional standards and competence among hairdressers. The Government believe such matters are often best dealt with by businesses and their representative bodies. They know how to improve standards. That is very effective in a competitive business with low barriers to entry and no reason why people cannot switch very easily, so the Government are not in favour of mandatory state registration for hairdressers, and as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, we oppose the European social partner agreement becoming a compulsory directive.
	The Health and Safety Executive will continue to work with all the various bodies representing the hairdressing industry, to maintain good standards of employee and customer health and safety. That is an appropriate way for what is a generally very well run and excellent industry to continue to be regulated.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.